THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 18, 2025
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister into the Rules of the Senate, including recommendations for amendments.
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I declare this meeting in session. My name is Peter Harder. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, representing Ontario.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette from Nova Scotia.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin today’s agenda, I want to confirm whether you prefer that we continue in public, on audio, not broadcasting, or to move in camera to review the draft report we have received. Are there views?
Hearing none, might I suggest we continue with audio? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, you all received a copy of the draft report last Thursday. I suggest we discuss paragraph by paragraph. As we go through, I’ll number the paragraphs, and if you could speak to those numbered paragraphs, it would be helpful in recording whether there is agreement or amendments being proposed. When we finish, we can decide on the process to review a final report incorporating the comments made and the agreements reached in this session.
If that is agreeable, I suggest we begin then with the draft report that’s before us and paragraph 1. Are there any comments with respect to paragraph 1? Seeing none, can I proceed then to paragraph 2?
Seeing none, can I continue to paragraph 3?
Seeing none, then we move to the historical context, paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7? Then we get into the meat of it in paragraph 8.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like this paragraph to be amended with a new wording. First, I suggest that the first part of the first sentence be deleted, so:
Although the committee did not reach a consensus on the decision to codify the practice of Question Period with a minister in the Rules . . .
This part will be deleted, and the sentence, the paragraph, would then begin by:
A clear majority of members of the committee — 12 yeas, 2 nays — agree that these amendments to the Rules will promote . . .
And then we will continue with the same paragraph.
The Chair: Colleagues, does anybody want that to be repeated just for clarity of understanding?
Senator Saint-Germain: I suggest that the first sentence of the original text be deleted up to and including the words “. . . in the Rules . . . ,” and then the paragraph as amended would begin:
A clear majority of members of the committee — 12 yeas, 2 nays — agree that these amendments to the Rules will promote . . .
So as from “. . . will promote . . . ,” it will be the same paragraph as in the original text.
The Chair: Any comments on the proposed amendment? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Paragraph 9? Paragraph 10? Paragraph 11?
Senator Saint-Germain: I propose an amendment with the word modification and removing part of the first sentence and the entire second sentence in the original text. The amendment, the new paragraph 11, if agreed by the members, will read as follows:
The committee acknowledges that, although all parliamentary groups and caucuses have the duty to hold the government to account, the opposition in the Senate has a special role in Question Period.
Shall I repeat?
The Chair: That would substitute the whole paragraph?
Senator Saint-Germain: Exactly.
The committee acknowledges that, although all parliamentary groups and caucuses have the duty to hold the government to account, the opposition in the Senate has a special role in Question Period.
The Chair: Is there any comment with respect to this amendment that’s on the floor?
Hearing no comments, are we agreeable to the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Paragraph 12? Paragraph 13?
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I just wanted to point out that line 3 of paragraph 13 in the French version refers to the “chef de l’opposition.” I think that it should say “leader de l’opposition.”
The Chair: Do we agree with this change? Yes? Okay.
[English]
Senator Petten: I apologize, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to make a comment from the perspective of the Government Representative’s Office, the GRO. We need to have the flexibility in paragraph 13. We’re concerned about the establishment of a list of ministers to invite.
The Chair: I’m not sure I understand. What is your concern?
Senator Petten: Currently, each group and the non-affiliated senators submit their own priority lists to the GRO, and they update them regularly. The GRO is concerned that a “fixed list” could create issues, as it may not provide the flexibility required for organizing the ministerial Question Period. Because of the ministers’ busy schedules, the GRO’s view is that it is best to have a few options. As the report mentions, there is also a need for flexibility. The process needs to provide opportunities for the groups to update their lists as priorities change during a given session.
It is the fact that you have to establish a list, rather than having the flexibility of —
The Chair: Yes. Our understanding from the testimony we heard — and I will open it up for comment — is, at leaders’ meetings, which are held regularly, weekly at least, it is reviewed and adjustments made. The list is not necessarily the order in which it is followed because of the very reasons that you cite. Our intention as a committee was to provide that flexibility but to ensure that leaders had that discussion, that it wasn’t a non-consultative process.
Senator Petten: But what is there is that it “should” be established. I was wondering if there could be a little bit more flexibility shown there.
The Chair: What are you proposing?
Senator Petten: Rather than “should,” for flexibility on the list —
The Chair: Off the top of my head, how about “. . . should establish an ongoing list of ministers to invite . . . ,” which would suggest a regular review.
Senator Petten: Or maybe “. . . may establish . . .”?
The Chair: No, I don’t think that’s what we want. We want to ensure that there’s consultation. Correct?
Senator Petten: Yes.
Senator Batters: Having just arrived here, I understand we have already blown through to paragraph 13.
On this one, frankly, if it’s the position of the Government Representative’s Office that they want to have more flexibility in this one, perhaps the leader of the government in the Senate should have come to testify at committee, rather than just having a very short letter provided, which I understand — which I found out since the last meeting — was provided despite the fact that the Government Leader in the Senate was already back in Ottawa and could have testified last week. The chair had indicated at the previous meeting that it would likely be weeks before the government leader would be able to attend, and then, despite the fact that perhaps some people on this committee knew that the government leader was in Ottawa and available to attend, he did not attend. So that’s a real gap in this coverage for this report.
I find it interesting that now the government leader is concerned about how this is worded.
The Chair: Are there comments on the wording that has been proposed?
Senator Petten: I think “ongoing”, to start there would be a good suggestion.
The Chair: An “ongoing list”?
Senator Petten: Yes.
The Chair: Are there other comments with respect to paragraph 13? I think it’s important — and we can speak to this in other areas as well — that, from the testimony we heard, senators wanted to be assured that the list would be discussed and ratified at leaders’ meetings. Obviously, that would have to take into account ministerial availability, but that it would be responsive to senators’ requests.
Senator K. Wells: A friendly suggestion that might help the Government Representative’s Office’s with what they’re trying to achieve here might be to replace, “. . . should maintain an ongoing list . . . ,” so that the “maintain” is the holder of the list, but “maintain” referring to the consultation that should happen and the suggestions.
The Chair: Any comments on that? So it would say, in that phrase, “ . . . should maintain an ongoing list of ministers to invite.”
Senator Batters: The point about having this suggested ongoing list means that list could be ongoing for several months, during which time certain ministers will be out of the hot seat and other ministers who the government might like to come to this committee but don’t really provide matters which the senators want to question that person on. There’s obviously an ongoing list of the entire cabinet. And apparently the government would like us to include people who don’t even sit at cabinet.
But to have an ongoing list really takes away from what we were trying to achieve here, which is to have timely questioning of ministers with points of view and portfolios that are really key at the time. I think that very much takes away from the spirit of what we discussed at several meetings here.
The Chair: Senator, I view what we are trying to do is to establish just that. That is to say, it is at leaders’ meetings, this list is ongoing because it can adjust to correspond to the subjects of the day, obviously.
I view it as read to ensure that the priorities you’re suggesting might shift are accomplished at the leaders’ meetings.
I share your concern that the ministers invited be the ones of highest interest and priority to the leaders collectively.
Senator Saint-Germain: Would this issue be fixed if we add “ . . . should establish and update a list of ministers to invite . . .”? Would the addition of “and update” satisfy Senator Batters’ concern?
Senator Batters: I guess that helps a little bit.
The Chair: Is there agreement to do so then?
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
Senator Petten: I prefer “. . . maintain an ongoing. . .”.
The Chair: But it would be updated. We don’t want to have devotion to a list that might be out of date, if I could put it that way.
Senator Petten: You could say, “. . . maintain an updated list . . .”
Senator Surette: From what we’ve heard, and I think what we’re trying to establish here is as much flexibility as possible. The word “maintain” changes the sense of the article for me, in the sense that somebody has to establish the list.
To me it’s quite clear that the government leader or representative, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and the leaders and facilitators, it’s quite clear there has to be some consultation in establishing the list. And to assume the flexibility — I’m not sure what the word “maintain” means. So you maintain a list. Somebody has to decide who you’re going to invite from that list anyway.
It seems to me the wording should be “ should establish and update” would add to it, but to me it changes the sense.
The Chair: Just for clarity, could you give your suggested wording?
Senator Surette: I suggest, “should establish and update a list of ministers to invite.”
Senator K. Wells: Friendly to that, “should establish and regularly update.” If we’re getting at the timeliness kind of conversation. This is the editing by committee, death by a thousand cuts.
The Chair: Is that agreeable? I think that captures your concern for flexibility and the collective concern that it be the list as expressed by consultation with leaders. With that, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Paragraph 14.
Senator Batters: I recognize I was a few minutes late so I wasn’t here for this. But there were two parts that I wanted to put forward that I thought required modification, and one of those was in paragraph 5. Frankly, when I first looked at this report, I expected to see a bit more historical context of why this practice started. This just says it started and this is when it started. It doesn’t say why it started.
As we had testimony from both Senator Carignan on this, and also I remarked about it a number of times during the study that the reason it started is because the new government at the time did not have a Government Leader in the Senate, and having a minister appear at Question Period was the only way that we were able to have the government held to account in the Senate. It doesn’t say anything about that.
It just says that it started in December 2015, and the Senate adopted it. It didn’t say why that was adopted, and that was actually discussed at this committee. I think it’s valuable for the full Senate to know a bit of history, that not that many people who are currently senators were there at that time.
The Chair: Are we okay with reverting to this paragraph? I’m fine with that.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Do you have suggested wording, senator?
Senator Saint-Germain: Point of order. Are you asking if we agree to revert to this paragraph only —
The Chair: Yes, to this paragraph.
Senator Saint-Germain: — or to revert right from the beginning? Because if it’s right from the beginning I personally oppose. This meeting was called one week ago at 9:30. So if it’s only on paragraph 4, I would agree, but only on this paragraph.
The Chair: Paragraph 5.
Senator Batters: There’s only one other paragraph.
Senator Downe: If we’re reverting I have a suggestion in paragraph 8 as well. Like Senator Batters, unfortunately I was delayed.
The Chair: And we did deal with an amendment to that, Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Okay, wonderful. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I had one other one, which is in paragraph 3. When it says, “After careful consideration of all evidence, the committee agreed to recommend to the Senate . . . ,” it does say much later in the report that it was the result of a vote that was forced and a majority vote, not a unanimous report. But I believe that, that early in the report, especially where it’s an introduction, it shouldn’t just look like the entire committee agreed. It wasn’t the entire committee. You could even say there that the “committee agreed by majority.” That’s the only other change prior to the status that where we’re at right now.
The Chair: Now I’m caught between Senator Saint-Germain’s willingness to deal with paragraph 5, and now you’ve now introduced paragraph 3. Can we deal with paragraph 5 first, and then you can ask that question?
Senator Batters: Yes, I was just trying to state that it wasn’t a major number of them, just those two.
The Chair: No, I understand that. Do you have suggested wording for paragraph 5, Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Let’s see what I can come up with, but after the first sentence, it could say:
The newly elected Liberal government did not have a government leader in the Senate at that time, and it was therefore desired to have ministers from that government appear at Question Period to be able to hold the government to account.
Senator Saint-Germain: I see an issue with identifying the Liberal government. In the Rules, we don’t have Liberal, Conservative; it’s not what we say. So the word “Liberal” would not be constitutional in our Rules, if I may say so.
The Chair: It’s not our practice. Are you okay with saying “the government of the day”?
Senator Batters: It’s a report. It’s a fact. I’m trying to establish that it wasn’t merely a new government that had been in place for quite some time. It was a government that had been out of power for many years.
The Chair: So we could say, “a newly elected government”?
Senator Batters: But that would have been the case with the government that just got elected, which has basically no changes in it. I don’t understand. It’s not something that has to be in the Rules or whatever, and certainly the Rules do refer to parties. The government leader — it even has it right in the rule — is the leader of the political party that forms the government of the day. So I don’t see a big deal with that.
Senator Dean: My sense of reading the room is that there isn’t going to be agreement to name a political party in relation to this document, so I suggest we move on.
Senator Batters: [Technical difficulties] — to be concerned about here.
Senator Burey: [Technical difficulties] with Senator Dean, but we just mentioned the Senate Liberals in that same paragraph. So we have to have some consistency in how we decide to move forward, whatever it is we decide.
The Chair: At that point, that was the name of a caucus.
Senator Batters: For four years.
The Chair: Colleagues, I would like to move on.
Senator Batters, could you repeat your suggestion?
Senator Batters: I didn’t write it down. I was just doing it off the cuff.
The Chair: Okay, the staff did.
Senator Batters: Hopefully they did.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: After the first sentence, we insert:
The newly elected government did not have a government leader in the Senate at the time, and it was therefore desired to have ministers from that government appear at Question Period to be able to hold the government to account.
The Chair: Is that agreeable? With that change, can we agree to the change to paragraph 5?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I acknowledge, Senator Saint-Germain, your concern about reverting to everything. There is a small addition, two words, that Senator Batters is suggesting for paragraph 3. If it is agreeable to the committee, I would suggest that we accommodate that change and then revert to where we were before we went backwards.
Senator Batters, just for clarity, could you repeat the words in paragraph 3 that you would like to have added?
Senator Batters: Paragraph 3, line 13, after the words, “the committee agreed,” it would just be added in ,“by majority”.
The Chair: Yes. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Let’s go back to paragraph 14.
Senator Saint-Germain: I suggest we maintain the original text and add one additional sentence at the end. And this sentence would be, “The committee agrees that Ministers of State should be able to appear at Question Period.”
The Chair: Okay. Let me open that up for comments.
Senator Batters: Let’s recall how the one Question Period that we’ve had with a Secretary of State went. We had a Secretary of State who, when asked what her salary was, whether she had a deputy minister, whether she had a separate department who reported to her — the most basic parts of her portfolio — whether she attended cabinet meetings and how many she attended — because they are only invited, not regularly attending — would not answer any of those questions. She also would not answer questions about basic parts of her portfolio. She, then, about a week later, participated in a government press conference where she answered a bunch of those questions, including about elder abuse and other things about which she had previously told senators — not me but other senators in the chamber — that was not her portfolio.
So we’ve not had a good experience with Secretaries of State. They do not sit at the cabinet table unless they’re invited. I think that there should be a reference to that in this paragraph. I am frankly surprised to hear that we would want to continue to the practice of allowing the government to call Secretaries of State, who have such inappropriate and sparse answers on a regular basis, rather than having ministers who could give us some actual accountability to the government.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to remind all of us that we’re not here to discuss a specific meeting with a minister or a Secretary of State. We are here to prepare the report of this committee further to the order that we received from the chamber on ministerial QP. My recollection — and the evidence is there — is that the majority of the members of this committee agreed that ministers of state, when we deem it appropriate, shall be invited. So this is the point we can make. It’s not about commenting on anything else. It’s about preparing our report to the Senate.
The Chair: I would, as chair, make just a couple of comments. One, we are talking about the pool of potential ministerial witnesses for ministerial Question Period. That list would be formed in consultation with all leaders. Secretaries of State are asked questions in the House of Commons. It may be that there would be an occasion where it would be the desire of leaders to have a Secretary of State. All that this does is allow it. It doesn’t insist that it be, but it allows. It’s not a comment on their relative role. It’s a question as to whether or not we want to have the potential to have them as ministerial witnesses.
Are there other comments?
Senator Downe: Yes. I support the initiative because, as I mentioned before, Secretary of State Wayne Long has been given specific responsibility for the Canada Revenue Agency. That’s his file. I think it would be important at some point to have him before the Senate, so all senators could quiz him on the ongoing problems with that department.
The Chair: Yes, I think there is a particular senator who would like to do that.
Senator Downe: Yes. I’m sure everyone around the table would.
Senator Batters: First of all, with respect to the minister of state or Secretary of State Long, he does have that specific responsibility, but it actually still remains the ministerial responsibility of, I believe, the Minister of Finance.
He’s the one that you need to get answers from if you want to find out what really is happening because he would only be attending cabinet meetings when he’s invited, and I don’t know how many he has been invited to.
My comments about the secretaries of state was that was the only actual experience we had during the 10 years we’ve had ministerial Question Period in the Senate. It seemed relevant to comment on the very unacceptable appearance we had.
I do remember asking on the day we were speaking about this whether any leaders — aside from the government that wanted that particular person there that day — had actually invited or indicated they wanted the Secretary of State for Seniors invited, and I didn’t receive any indication that anyone had, aside from the government. I’m still curious to hear that because it was not good for the Senate that day.
Senator Downe: My experience when I had the opportunity to work in government is the secretaries’ of state responsibility depends on what department they have been assigned. For example, the Secretary of State of Veterans Affairs, back 20 years ago, fell under the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence David Collenette was obviously very busy with defence. He left veteran affairs exclusively to the secretary of state. It was Lawrence MacAulay at time.
My sense is the same thing is happening now. Secretary of State Long, who I’ve been in discussion with on numerous occasions already, is the person responsible for CRA I think for the very same reason. The Minister of Finance has a completely full plate doing other things, and if he has this secretary of state to coordinate and work on CRA, that lessens his burden and doesn’t increase his overall responsibility, and that’s why I would like to have that person who works day-to-day in the CRA before the Senate. I’m sure there are other senators who would be interested in other secretaries of state for the same reason.
The Chair: Again, this is eligibility to appear for Question Period.
Senator K. Wells: Just to echo that same point, our goal here is looking forward, not hashing out what has already happened and looking to provide the greatest flexibility to have ministers or secretaries of state in the future come before the Senate.
I would support Senator Saint-Germain’s amendment.
Senator Petitclerc: I would echo the same thing. We’re not talking specifics, but I support this because one of the things that we heard from everybody is the priority of having flexibility, and this falls into offering that flexibility we all want.
The Chair: We have an amendment. Is it agreeable to include the amendment in the report?
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Paragraph 15?
Senator Batters: I would echo the same things I said when we were discussing this at the last meeting. Receiving notice one day before the actual Question Period when it is a day we’re already here, my schedules are often 12 hours straight of meetings and Senate sittings and committee meetings, so that is not a lot of time to prepare, and I think it should be longer than that. The government is certainly aware of who they are planning to bring with more advance notice than that, and I don’t believe that one sitting day is sufficient.
The Chair: It is designed to encourage earlier but no later than. Are there other comments? Any suggested word changes? Are we agreeable with these words? Agreed?
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Paragraph 16?
Senator Petten: The GRO agrees with the committee that the ministerial Question Period should strive to be every second week. However, the GRO would recommend using language that provides a little bit more flexibility. A suggestion would be “to the extent that it is practical” the ministerial QP would occur every second sitting week. We all know that for senators, especially now, this time of the year, there have been times that our sittings are so full with Senate business there was agreement amongst the groups to not proceed with ministerial Question Period in a given week. We could just add in “to the extent that it is practical” every second week.
Senator Batters: Simply adding the words “to the extent that it is practical,” what does that mean? It is extremely vague. If the government wants to have that type of wording, I think it needs to be much tighter than that.
The current situation is we have basically zero government business in the chamber. We have had sittings lasting 50 minutes right now. We’ll see if it gets busier, but right now it is not. Just simply allowing the government to say, “Oh, it is not practical,” what does that mean? It is practical or not? There should be more rigidity to that word.
The Chair: I propose an attempt at a compromise:
The committee agrees that Question Period with the ministers should occur every second sitting week with the concurrence of leaders.
In other words, the leaders’ table can adjust that.
My concern is that it not be just the Government Representative, that it be a collective decision amongst leaders so that it occurs every second week as agreed by leaders. Is that helpful?
Senator K. Wells: What’s the exact wording?
The Chair: That it “occur every second week as agreed by leaders.’ It would allow flexibility but strengthen the determination if I could put it that way. Is paragraph 16, as amended, agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Paragraph 17?
Senator Petten: The GRO acknowledges that the committee agrees to maintain the 64-minute duration for the ministerial Question Period. However, to note that it is a long time for Question Period. I’m wondering if the committee would consider using language such as “maximum of 64 minutes”?
The Chair: Let me defend the committee, if I could, at this point and say that we are not putting this in the Rules. We are making these observations on the features of Question Period to leaders who ultimately have the flexibility, as we describe it in the rule, to determine how Question Period gets adjusted. I would rather keep it as it is, recognizing that leaders have that flexibility to determine collectively the shape and duration of Question Period, and indeed the allocation of proportional questions. That will change from time to time. That’s my view.
Senator Batters: Just a small point. There needs to be a period at the end of that sentence.
The Chair: With a period. Very good, excellent. Paragraph 18, are there any comments? Hearing none, agreed.
Decorum, paragraph 19; any comments?
Hearing none, agreed.
Paragraph 20?
Paragraph 21?
Paragraph 22?
Paragraph 23?
Paragraph 24?
Paragraph 25?
Senator Batters: The historical part of it, as I have talked about a number of times at this the committee, needs to be emphasized. That’s really my preoccupation with having the minister not seated with the government leader but seated elsewhere in the Senate.
I would just suggest a small addition on line 26 where it says “. . . better reflecting the Senate’s distinctive culture. . .”, I would suggest adding in before “Senate”, adding “history and the Senate’s distinctive culture”, because there’s a historical reference a couple of paragraphs above. That’s really part of the main part of the reason that me and others who favour that approach want to emphasize the history.
The Chair: Can you read that sentence you’re proposing?
Senator Batters: I propose, “Some members also view this option as better reflecting the history and the Senate’s distinctive culture.”
The Chair: I see agreement.
Senator K. Wells: You said reflecting the Senate’s history and distinctive culture? Like, “history” coming before “the Senate” is missing the context.
Senator Batters: I guess so. To me it actually goes many hundreds of years before the Senate, and it was more a reflection of the history of the House of Lords, the U.K. Parliament, things like that.
Senator K. Wells: Reflecting the parliamentary history?
Senator Batters: Reflecting the parliamentary history, sure, and the Senate’s —
The Chair: With that amendment is paragraph 25 agreeable?
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
The Chair: Paragraph 29? And we’ll deal with basically the recommendation.
Senator Batters: On this, I was surprised when I saw this report. This is supposed to be a report reflecting what was discussed at this committee, and all this recommendation has is simply the entire proposal, as it was passed by the majority of the committee but not the full committee, and it doesn’t have any of the significant concerns that I and others raised about this.
Particularly problematic is the fact that it doesn’t say anything — I mean, in some ways I feel like why did I even speak last week? Because when it has the part about “This Motion shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote.” There’s nothing said about the lengthy discussion that we had there and the kind of absurdity of having a parliamentary institution develop a motion that then is forced through at the beginning of each session without debate or vote.
Another concern that I had and that I expressed major problems with, was that nowhere in this entire motion does it even say the words “non-affiliated senators”. So yet again, as I brought up, the independent Senate is basically not adhering to equality of senators but equality of groups and entirely leaving out non-affiliated senators.
So because this proposal has that, “The motion shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote”, which the majority of this committee forced through last week, that means a non-affiliated senator who is not part of a group, and doesn’t have a leader of a group, has no ability to even have any actual input. Maybe they might be consulted with the government leader perhaps, if they feel like it, but they have no ability to bring it up even in the Senate as this motion is forced through. And that should not be what we do in Parliament.
Senator Saint-Germain: I just want to highlight that in paragraph 13 of this report we state that the committee also agrees that the Office of the Government Leader or Representative should continue to engage with non-affiliated senators to consider their views.
The Chair: Colleagues, the position of this recommendation is the very recommendation that we voted on at our last meeting. And the formal way of presenting it to the full Senate is in this report in this fashion.
So I would suggest that if we are rehashing the arguments of two weeks ago, after some debate we will undoubtedly need to have a vote on this to ensure that we have consistent support for the recommendation as agreed to earlier.
Senator Batters: The thing is, if the full Senate is not notified as to what the arguments were, pro and con, and certainly serious concerns that were raised at this committee about this very proposal — and outlined in significant fashion, not just a very brief mention, but considerable debate back and forth about that — well, actually I’m not sure if anyone had any rationale for thinking that such a motion should be deemed adopted without debate or vote, as it says.
So shouldn’t the full Senate, when they’re actually considering this report, as they will, shouldn’t they know there were concerns raised about this and this? Otherwise, especially now, today we have a meeting that is audio only, it’s not even a video. So how are senators supposed to be aware of the gravity of what they’re being faced with, particularly non-affiliated senators who are completely left out?
And, yes, obviously for the government, it’s to their best interest to consult with non-affiliated senators, as any senator can hold up government business, all business of the Senate. So for government and opposition leaders, it’s to their best interest to have good consultation going with non-affiliated senators.
But what this is providing is the ministerial Question Period sessional orders that will be done at the beginning of each session, will be passed in the Senate, deemed adopted with no debate or vote.
That entirely leaves out senators from different groups who may not know what the sessional order entails, or may not agree with the particular leader or facilitator of their different group about how that’s being pushed through.
We have a number of groups who consider themselves independent so occasionally they have disagreements with the leaders or facilitators of their groups, but mainly non-affiliated senators are — yet again — being left out by the vast majority of the senators who belong to the largest groups.
The Chair: So, colleagues, this is the very motion that we adopted at our last meeting. I would call the question on paragraphs reflecting that recommendation. Is there agreement to include the recommendation that we’ve already voted on in this report?
Senator Batters: No
The Chair: On division? Do you want a recorded vote?
Senator Batters: I want a paragraph included about —
The Chair: That paragraph is paragraph 13.
Senator Batters: That says that the government leaders should consult with?
The Chair: It reflects the fact that this was not a unanimous position but it was a majority position and it continues to be so. And I would expect when this report is tabled, senators may choose to speak to it to make that point.
Senator Batters: Right. But what is not included in paragraph 13 — or elsewhere in the report — is any discussion about the fact that the Rules Committee, of all committees, is recommending that a sessional order be deemed adopted without debate or vote in the Senate.
The Chair: That’s not unusual practice, by the way.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, I just want to remind all of us that a committee report is not the same as a transcript or the transcripts of the committee’s meeting on a specific topic. So the transcripts of our reports are all available. All our meetings, if I’m not mistaken, were public; this is different.
A report is what the committee recommends and the reasons why the committee recommends to the chamber, to the Senate, to move one way or the other. So we have recommendations, and as you said, Mr. Chair, the debate will now be moved to the Senate.
The Chair: Colleagues, what I would suggest, if I could, is that we vote on whether or not the recommendation, as we have already agreed to, should be included in this report.
Senator Batters: I wanted to respond to what Senator Saint-Germain said.
I have been a member of committees that have had many reports over the last 12 years. What committee reports do contain is a summary of evidence and arguments brought forward — usually on both sides of an issue — so that the Senate can be better informed, rather than having to go through hours of transcripts or videos or audio clips or anything like that. The senators can be better informed, as every senator sits on different committees, and they would need to know a better indication, rather than having to go through transcripts and that sort of thing.
The Chair: Can I call the question? Is it agreed to include the recommendation in the report?
Senator Batters: No. Recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote, please.
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.?
Senator Harder: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Dhillon?
Senator Dhillon: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Surette?
Senator Surette: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: Yeas, 10; nays, 1.
The Chair: The recommendation is carried.
Colleagues, that brings us to the whole set of motions on how to proceed further.
Is it agreed that the draft report, as amended, be adopted in both official languages and that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report in both languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or transitional changes required? Or would the committee prefer that the full committee review the report next week?
Senator Saint-Germain: My views are that the committee should give the steering committee the power to finalize, as it is the usual practice. It is only edits.
Senator Batters: That would be the usual practice, but the steering committee currently has no power. That would be the usual practice, but we don’t have power. No, we don’t. We don’t have power to even —
The Chair: This motion will give them the power, if adopted.
Senator Petitclerc: That was going to be my point. Thank you for asking the members what we prefer, and I would support that we give that authority to the steering and the team.
The Chair: I sense that it is agreed, and, colleagues, I will ensure that all members of the steering committee are given that draft report, and hopefully it reflects the decisions that we took today. If not, we’ll revert.
Is it agreed that I be authorized to present the report in the Senate in both official languages at the earliest opportunity, subject to steering committee approval?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Colleagues, I think that brings us to the end of this subject. You’ll recall that we wanted to set aside some time at this meeting to discuss our forward agenda.
There were a number of issues on the table for consideration, and I would just like to outline them and then open it up for suggested priorities.
We have the issue of membership of the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest, where this committee has been seized of this issue for some time.
We have the issue of non-affiliated senators. This committee began a study, and no report has been issued. There was a summary of evidence circulated over the summer.
We have the issue of the structure of committees in the Senate. Again, the study began in the Forty-fourth Parliament, and one report was tabled in the Senate with no recommendations. Summaries of evidence were circulated in the summer.
We have a suggestion from Senator K. Wells with respect to e-petitions.
Those are the issues that I’m aware of that have been raised in the committee. Are there comments or suggestions of priority that senators would like to express?
Senator Batters: Given that we spent several meetings dealing with the whole non-affiliated senators issue, it would seem that if we just dropped that or prioritize new items, which have not been the study of several meetings, that would not be a good way to handle it.
The Chair: Colleagues, other comments?
Senator Burey: Are you asking us to rank these?
The Chair: Which would be your priorities, recognizing that they have all been in a queue, if I could put it that way, for some time?
Senator Burey: Should I give you my rankings?
The Chair: Yes, please.
Senator Burey: One for the non-affiliated senators, two for the committee structure, three for ethics and four for e-petitions.
The Chair: Are any other views?
Senator Petitclerc: I have not made mine up quickly like you, but I definitely would prioritize the non-affiliated study that was started.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would prioritize ethics.
Senator K. Wells: I’m just wondering about the amount of work left for each of those priorities. How many meetings would we be thinking, so it gives us a sense of how we come to our one-to-four ranking based on how much time of the committee would be devoted to each, roughly, if that’s possible?
The Chair: I think that’s difficult, because it depends on the degree of consensus around the room.
If I could comment on Senator Saint-Germain’s suggestion, and I understand I’m in a complete conflict of interest, which you all know. The Conflict of Interest Committee sent its report some years ago to this committee, and it was tabled in the Senate. It is one issue that we could deal with, I think, rather quickly, but I simply put that out there. It is not a burning platform.
Are there other views?
Senator Batters: On that one, I think I asked this question before, but I don’t recall getting an answer. I remember when that conflict of interest question came to this committee, and for some reason, we decided not to proceed with it at the time. I don’t recall why.
Have the Library of Parliament analyst or the clerk looked into that for an indication as to why we decided that?
Ms. Virgint: The Chair and the vice-chair of Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators did appear at this committee in June 2021, and then following that meeting, Parliament was dissolved that summer. In the Forty-fourth Parliament, this committee did not resume that study.
Senator White: For my rankings, I would like to see Ethics dealt with first, because it seems like it has been in the queue the longest, and then the non-affiliates and committee structure.
Senator K. Wells: Just for some background on the e-petition in the queue of studies, what I would see there is a great opportunity to do an efficient three- to four-meeting study to learn about timelines, costs and best practices, certainly looking closely at what the House of Commons has done.
It is certainly something I have heard from the community many times about the differences and the frustrations with the processes in the different chambers and the public wanting a mechanism to share concerns that they have with the Senate.
That’s some of the background and the rationale. It would not be a super-long study but one that, I think, we could do quite efficiently.
The Chair: Other comments?
How are we going to proceed?
Senator Downe: I think the non-affiliated senators and committee structures are the top two for me.
The Chair: Is it agreeable that our next priority be non‑affiliated? Can I suggest that the second one would be Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators membership and the third one be committee structure, because I think that one will take more time, frankly? If we could conclude the first two relatively quickly, then that would lead Senator K. Wells to e-petitions, subsequent to that.
In the meantime, could I suggest that we ask our Library of Parliament analysts to outline the issues on the e-petitions and describe the different practices between the House and the Senate and why? At least that gives an historic background. That could provide us with at least some information to get a kick-start on the study. Is that agreeable?
Senator Downe: Yes, I agree with that. I have another minor issue I want to raise at the appropriate time.
The Chair: Why not now?
Senator Downe: It’s not significant, but I think it is important, and that is dress code. I notice that the majority of senators, in the chamber in the warmer weather when it is not that well air-conditioned, are dressing a little differently than the minority members, which are the men who are wearing suits and ties. I notice the House of Commons has a lot of MPs without ties, and I am thinking the same thing could be done here. If we could find out what other chambers are doing on dress code, as you are doing with the e-petition, that might be helpful. Currently, in our chamber, unless you have a medical reason, you have to wear a tie.
The Chair: If it is agreeable, I suggest, we ask our Library of Parliament analysts to do a paper on that. Once circulated, we could decide what priority to give that.
Senator Downe: It’s not pressing, but we should try to be consistent with the House of Commons for the same reason as with the e-petitions. What are we doing?
The Chair: Our next meeting we will devote to the issue of non-affiliated. I invite senators to review the material that had been sent over the course of the summer. We will recirculate that.
If there are suggestions, informally or formally, to be made as to how we should proceed, I would welcome that. If it is agreeable, we will proceed in that order and convene then at our next meeting on that subject. Is that agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I see that we have reached the end of our agenda. Is it agreed that we adjourn?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee adjourned.)