THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 25, 2025
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET] for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Peter Harder, a senator from Ontario and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I’d like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Honourable senators, the first item of business I would like to deal with is the study on ministerial Question Period. You will recall that at the last meeting, we agreed on a report and subject to the steering committee giving final approval to any grammatical or other changes. I have heard from everyone on the steering committee and we do not have unanimity in the steering committee. So I would like to reference the material that was set out yesterday and ask the committee whether or not there is the will of the committee that we adopt the report. We actually did it at the last meeting subject to the final report being circulated and that has been done.
I would entertain a motion to that effect if that is agreeable. So moved by Senator Yussuff.
Senators, are you agreed that I can table the committee report in the Senate at the earliest opportunity?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Excellent. Thank you.
For our discussion today, you will recall at the last meeting we agreed that our follow-up agenda for meetings in this week and coming weeks would begin with the study of non-affiliated senators, and then we would deal with the CONF issue that has been before the committee for some time. Then we have the issue of committee membership. So we have a few things that we need to come to some point of conclusion on.
The agreement was we would begin with the non-affiliated senators. To that end, the analyst has prepared a briefing note with the list of witnesses that you have heard and the summary of evidence. The more detailed meeting summaries shared this summer have also been recirculated in the course of the last week.
I thought it might be best, before I open the floor, to simply ask our analysts to briefly go through the material to summarize the issues that have come to the fore in this committee work thus far.
I would ask François to please take a few minutes to take us through the document that has been circulated.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Good morning, senators. Some of you who were members of this committee in the previous Parliament may recall that in June 2024, the committee undertook a study on the role of non‑affiliated senators. It was part of its general mandate under section 12-7 of the Rules of the Senate.
The committee reviewed the practice in the Senate but also the practice in the U.K. House of Lords, the House of Commons and the French Senate. It considered potential procedural changes. It reflected on the possibility of codifying and looked at other alternatives as well. But its first witnesses testified on June 4. The three non-affiliated senators who were non-affiliated for a period of time testified on their status, and they presented some preoccupations.
In total, the Rules Committee received testimony from 12 witnesses. It heard, among other things, from the Senior Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords, French senators, but also the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Martin. The testimony addressed several key components.
The first one I would say was some of the underlying principles, including equality, equal treatment, maybe equity, the question of proportionality, access to procedural information, maybe more procedural structure and foreseeability or predictability. I would say that “communication” was a key word that came up during the hearings. As I said, there were practical considerations that were addressed from these non-affiliated senators and some practical examples were provided from the witnesses who were coming from other jurisdictions.
On June 4, Senator Brazeau explained that in principle, all senators were preoccupied by certain aspects of equality and the fact that compared to members of groups or parties, non‑affiliated senators have less access to certain he said privileges or benefits. That can include, as he mentioned, the possibility to speak, to make a certain number of statements, mentioning that they have to wait three, four or five weeks before they can deliver a senator’s statement.
Senator Brazeau said that non-affiliated senators have less chance of becoming Speaker of the Senate, for example, and less chance of becoming chairs of committees or holding other positions.
Other views were expressed. For example, from former Senator Cowan mentioned that every senator has the same right in the chamber. Senator Martin also believed that all senators are equal. That was the discussion that took place in terms of the principle of equality.
The non-affiliated senators also discussed the question of the channels of communication. Senator Brazeau explained that non‑affiliated senators have to go through all the leaders in order to get their items on the agenda and move these items forward.
Senator McCallum also gave the example of a repeal, which despite 12 speeches at the time at second and third reading was still not advancing. At the same time, there were also reflections among the members about the fact that the Senate provides some advantages that are not necessarily similar in the House of Commons where the independents face more difficulties because the items are, most of the time, time-limited in the House of Commons.
There was a short discussion about the fact that Motion No. 165, which was adopted in May 2024, established equality among recognized groups and parties but did not address the question of the equality of non-affiliated senators. There were discussions also with the concept of respect, collegiality. Senator McCallum mentioned that they need more respect of one another, but at the same time Professor Malloy observed that there is a certain collegiality that characterized the Senate in its procedure when we compare to the House of Commons and provincial assemblies.
There were questions of access to information that were also discussed. There were good points that came up from it. The need for more procedural structure and foreseeability was mentioned. There were some good questions that were asked to Senator Brazeau whether or not he would agree with a certain time frame for questions and statements.
I don’t want to go into detail. There were discussions about proportionality, participation in committee proceedings. There were some examples of accommodations that are provided to the non-affiliated senators or members of other jurisdictions. I don’t want to go too much into the details, but that’s a general overview.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I open up for comments but before I do so, I want to acknowledge for the viewing audience that Senators Downe and Batters have joined us.
As I open up it for comments, I think I will be guided by what it is we want to do with this report and do we want to hear any additional witnesses? Do we want to table the report? Are there any recommendations such a report would have? Do we want to provide drafting instructions in the course of this meeting?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for that summary of evidence heard by the committee. I, too, was going to talk about the next steps, but before I do that, I would like to highlight a few things. It was also said that the Government Representative’s office has a role to play in ensuring that non‑affiliated senators have access to adequate information. Many witnesses, including Senator Martin — I remember her comments — said that when discussing bills or voting, all senators in the chamber have the same rights, regardless of their group. I think that’s really important to mention.
It was also said that, in the House of Commons — Jean‑Philippe Brochu, Clerk Assistant, and Jeffrey LeBlanc, Deputy Clerk for Procedure, shared important information on this topic — an independent MP does not receive the same treatment as a non-affiliated senator, and the same applies to unelected members of the House. I think that is also important to mention. The House of Lords representative we heard from made the same point, and the same was true for non-elected members of the House.
These are examples I wanted to highlight to show that, in general, according to the evidence we heard, except from the few non-affiliated senators, these senators have different options, but they are still treated fairly, including when it comes to legislation.
To answer your question, Mr. Chair, I think the witnesses gave us some very convincing arguments. There is no need to ask representatives of the House of Lords and the U.K. House of Commons to appear once more before the committee. They will probably say the same thing, anyway. I think the discussions were very detailed. I would use the evidence we have, and I would ask for a recommendation based on that.
[English]
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for providing the information. It was very riveting reading, and it was like a movie. I enjoyed it. I was not here for this or that. I have a lot of catching up to do and perhaps my question is related to the fact that I wasn’t here. But in terms of numbers, for example, on the question of questions in QP, did we have what the average senator gets to do? I’m not talking about groups; what does the average senator get to do?
For example, we have the non-affiliated CSG, ISG, PSG, so within that group what does that average senator get to do in terms of the number of questions for that group divided by the number of senators in that group? That would maybe be compared with what the non-affiliated senators get. Is that possible?
Mr. Delisle: That’s an interesting and important point. The library provided statistics that were based on the number of questions by non-affiliated senators, especially those who were there for the long term, more than one year, because there were also those who were there for less than one year on the basis of our assessment. So it was a percentage based on the total number of questions that were asked. That was one aspect.
But there are some limitations with these statistics because they were around 1.5% depending on the different number of years, but I would say the limitations are coming from the fact that there is a continual change in the composition of the chamber through the years. At the beginning of the year, you can have 105 senators and then have 100 or 98. So you have to balance and find a certain median between those numbers to be able to have an average compared to all the groups.
I admit there are certain additional statistics that could be considered, but it’s difficult to provide something that can be a perfect assessment because of the declination of the numbers.
Senator Burey: I just really wanted to be able to compare what an average senator — since we’re talking about equality of rights and privileges. Say I’m in a group but I don’t get to speak a lot because you’re on a long waiting list and the statements and that sort of thing. I’m just wondering if there were some numbers around that. That was my question.
To your question, Senator Harder, are we ready to finish the study and write a report? Well, my question or my assessment because I wasn’t here is that I would like to see that analysis, whatever you can give us on that fact. But I think we are close.
Senator Surette: My question was more on the process as well. There is a lot of work that has been done here. Eight meetings as I see and 12 witnesses, a lot of information. I’m assuming that the timing — the last meeting was December 10 — and this was put aside because of prorogation and the election. I’m curious why we didn’t pick it up first since there was so much work done here.
My question is — to try to answer your question — looking back at it, what was the intent of studying this originally? Was there any indication that we wanted the report or just a brief look at this?
Mr. Delisle: Originally, there was a government motion that had been tabled in the Senate, but, in the meantime, the committee decided to go ahead under its own prerogative with that study. The context of that study is also that a few months before, a government motion had been adopted to provide for more equality between the groups and recognized parties.
The Chair: On the question that you posed with respect to the order of work this fall, we did the ministerial Question Period because we are under a motion of the Senate to report on that by December 18. So we took what was urgent as opposed to what had been under way. That explains why we’re now dealing with this.
Senator Batters: First of all, thank you for your question about that. Actually, I’d say that the vast majority of the senators on this committee were not part of this committee when we studied this, so it’s helpful to have that perspective that you asked about.
My understanding of non-affiliated senators is they really have almost no ability to ask questions in Question Period and that was one of the significant problems that those who testified raised with us in that committee study, and that’s because sometimes one of the groups might give them one of their questions or one of their statements or things like that and they don’t want to have to go to the other groups, understandably.
Then occasionally, if there is time at the very end after the list has been exhausted, then that would be up to a non-affiliated senator. I recall sometimes seeing Senator McPhedran at the very end be a little bit like, “Oh, okay, today I get it,” and she pulls out one of her questions that she’s been waiting to ask for some time.
Also, the history of this motion is that when Senator Gold was government leader in the Senate, he brought that motion forward that our Library of Parliament analyst referenced. That was because just shortly before that, earlier that spring of 2024, the government brought an omnibus rule change motion with many pages of rule changes to the Senate, and then in questioning about it I recall saying to Senator Gold there’s not one place in these many pages that it even says the words “non-affiliated.” Because of that, the government leader in the Senate decided perhaps we should get the Rules Committee to study the issue of non-affiliated senators, and that’s why then this committee started to do that study because of that realization by the government leader in the Senate that there was no mention of non-affiliated senators anywhere in that many pages of rule changes that they brought.
Also, with respect to a few other comments that were made, when Senator Saint-Germain was indicating that non-affiliated senators are often consulted with the government, I do note that there wasn’t anyone from the current government representative’s office that testified at this committee study. It was Senator Martin that was talking about what situation used to exist 9 or 10 years ago when we were government. Certainly, yes, we did absolutely keep non-affiliated senators in the loop because they can have a big impact on the chamber. Certainly, at the time, the Senate Rules were much more in keeping with the equality of senators. That omnibus rule change motion that the government brought, which then it forced through by time allocation, provided much more equality by group, much less so equality by senators which has existed for many decades in the Senate of Canada. Unfortunately, that’s not really what we have right now, and the recommendation for additional changes to the Rules for ministerial Question Period — which the majority of this committee passed last week — also contain absolutely no reference to non-affiliated senators whatsoever in those recommendations for the rule changes for the Senate. Again, it is cementing the equality of groups and diminishing the equality of senators which really has an impact on non-affiliated senators.
Senator Ringuette: First of all, I would like to respond to the fact that equality back then is not what equality is now. From my perspective, there’s more equality now than there has ever been.
First, let me say that in the last several years, because of the transition to independent senators and their group, we now have a scroll that used to be only provided to the Leader of the Government and the opposition. Now every senator has a copy of the scroll. Every senator knows what is the intent of the conversation in the chamber every day.
Second, in regard to Question Period and statements, I can only say that from my experience as the former Speaker pro tempore, in my discussion in regard to questions and statements from unaffiliated senators, the proportion was actually slightly more than for any other senators. That being said, some independent senators always have their name put forth either for a question or a statement. However, when that time frame comes in the Senate Chamber, many times when slots would have been allotted for questions or statements, these senators are not in the chamber. That has to be accounted for in your analysis.
Now, I will also say that from my perspective, it seems as if there is an understanding amongst leaders with regard to communicating to the non-affiliated senators what has been discussed, either a movement within Senate Chamber of motions or bills and so forth. There is also the fact that the GRO has undertaken to be that communication link with our — currently — two independent senators. There is also an agreement in regard to unaffiliated senators being on committees. That is very important. Then we also now have the possibility of written questions with a deadline of answers of 30 sitting days.
In which event is there not equality and recognition of all senators? This is a question I have. I went through and reviewed all the testimony that we have, and I’m trying to find an instance or a period in the senator’s responsibility that non-affiliated senators are not being treated equally. If anyone can answer that, I’d like to have some answers. I really made an effort to see where we could make an improvement here or there, but I really don’t know.
Actually, in regard to Question Period or statements, none of us has a guaranteed spot at any time.
If someone can answer, please. I think Senator Batters wants to answer my question with regard to identifying an element that does not provide fair treatment.
Senator Yussuff: I had a chance to read the report and I tried to assess what is it that we’re trying to solve other than the big question of equality of senators in the chamber.
My simple way of trying to understand this is comparing apples and oranges, because it varies and depends on when you’re asking that particular question: What is an independent senator who is not part of a group seeking to achieve? It is very different. If you look at the question of private member’s bills — and I’ve been here for a little bit of time — I’ve seen many of the senators that are sitting as independent senators have their bill go through a full process and got dealt with in the chamber, maybe in a timely way they would have liked it, even though they were only one, the process did work effectively for them.
Senator Burey asked an interesting question about whether we’re using a measurement of questions and who gets to ask them. I’ve been in the chamber four and a half years, going on five. I have yet to ask a question, but I’ve chosen not to. I never asked my group to give me a chance to ask a question in Question Period. I have my own version about Question Period in general, but there is that aspect of it.
I think the report touches on a number of things. There are some aspects of the report that I read — and I’m trying to be as respectful as I can — that are incoherent in my own understanding of reading it. I don’t know what I’m trying to discern from reading the report, and I’m being totally candid.
The question for us as a group, if we are going to report, there are aspects that need to be reflected honestly in regard to how certain factors of independent senators are reflected in the chamber. You could list them and use a concrete example to give our colleagues a sense of the fairness of the system, but there is also a reality to this that we are part of large groups in this chamber, and we all choose to belong to a group. Each one of those groups has their own dynamics, and the history of the official opposition has certainly bestowed rights that it assumes for itself. There is also the question of allocation of resources that gets to groups that independent senators won’t have in the context of how they do their jobs and functions.
I am struggling to figure out how we do something that could give the chamber a sense of what works really well and maybe an opportunity to pick up on a couple of concerns that the independent senators have raised. Now, one of those independent senators is part of an organized group. All three of the independent senators, two who still remain, were part of an organized group at different points in time in the chamber.
When I came here, as most senators when they first arrive, I sat for a while where I was not part of a group. I accepted that I’m not part of a group. I’m here to observe and learn, and I will decide what I want to join later. Eventually, I did join a group.
There is a different reality and reflection. To be fair to those senators, at one time, they had privileges and rights far more so than they have today. That’s the reality of belonging to a group to a large extent.
In fairness to the larger operations of the chamber, I’m not sure any group is going to agree to give up certain aspects of their privilege to independent senators if they have somebody within their group to just ask a question or, in that question, move their private member’s bill forward versus independent senators. There is that reality.
In terms of this report, if we were to try to prepare it in a way that would give the Senate an understanding of what we were looking at, I think we need to do a bit more work to scope out more specifically how we could tell a story that is a bit fairer to how the system works right now and maybe some areas that we can work on.
The point about the GRO communicating with the independent senators is a useful and necessary one, and we should ensure that it is more formal than informal because I think they should have a right to know what is happening in the chamber on any given day. They can choose to use that information however they would like to interact with it.
As the report is currently laid out, I think it is problematic to present it in the way that will tell a useful story about fairness of the system.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, colleagues. I too was not in this committee at the time of this study, but this is very comprehensive, so thank you for all the work that has been done.
There are a few things I still need clarity on. I do think there is value in digging a little deeper, from my perspective. I agree with Senator Burey; I would like to have a bit of a state of things on numbers, how many questions and statements and all of that. But when we do that, what would be important is not only the numbers or the data, but how, for example, those statements were achieved.
One thing that really speaks to me is that non-affiliated senators — and it has been documented — need to ask for spots from different groups. Sometimes they recognize it, and they have said, “Thank you to this group to giving me a spot.” To me, that is problematic because I feel every senator should have the same rights without asking for a favour. It’s like they are asking for favours when it comes to Question Period or statements.
What is not clear to me is what is it that we want to do? Do we want to propose recommendations for solutions? First, do we recognize a lack of equality at every aspect on how a senator should and wants to fulfill their roles? If we recognize that, then do we want to recommend proposed solutions? I’m not sure we are quite there.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. First of all, this is certainly not a report. This is just a summary of some of the evidence that we received at committee. Some people were referring to it as a report and it’s not in this — obviously, it’s not meant to be. It’s not even close to a report. It’s just a summary of some of the evidence.
Non-affiliated senators, actually, who testified at this committee gave detailed and cogent testimony about the problems that exist with the current way the system has been going for the last considerable period of time. As Senator Petitclerc was just mentioning, yes, that is a big part of what they talked about; they have to go to groups to get questions, to get statements and to have spots on committees. All of those things come from the benevolence of groups. A big part of their testimony indicated that they don’t care for having to do that, and that’s understandable.
But, again, I bring up that the Senate used to be much more based on equality of senators and much less so equality of groups. When senators from the largest group in the Senate are talking about how they don’t get questions but they also don’t ask their group to get questions, well, their group gets many spots every week. In fact, the largest group gets nearly as many spots every Question Period as the opposition does. That’s actually the stated role for Question Period, accountability from the government. That’s a large part of it.
I would suggest that senators who don’t find this summary of evidence detailing the problems that may exist according to those senators who are under this non-affiliated system, perhaps they should watch the video of that particular committee meeting that happened to get a better sense, if the summary of testimony doesn’t give enough of an indication. I thought it was very clear when they were testifying, and perhaps that might be the case.
But I recall many times, like Senator Petitclerc mentioned, that there was the rare time when a non-affiliated senator was able to get up either in Question Period or with statements and that sort of thing, and they often thank the group that has given them that spot. Certainly for committees, the reason there aren’t any regular members of this committee, for example, is because non‑affiliated senators don’t get spots as a matter of course. They may have decided, as part of a leader’s decision, that a certain number of non-affiliated spots will be given — so many from this group, so many from that group — but that’s how it’s done. It’s very much divvied out from groups, and that was not generally the case before.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, colleagues. On the point of what we do with this pre-report, the discussions we have had and the witnesses that we have had both from Canada and abroad are an important picture of the evolution of the Senate. I think we should put it in a report and table it for colleagues and for people who may wish to read this in the future. The Senate has gone through a significant transformation over the last 10 to 15 years, so I think this is an important part of that portrait.
Second, a lot of the points that were made here are really part of the debate of what we have heard from witnesses and discussions we have had. Those things can be polished once we have a draft and we can do that as part of the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a very short point. I concur with Senator Wells. During testimony from our witnesses, we had some data that came from the Library of Parliament that demonstrated that there was a fairness and balance with the opportunities given to the non-affiliated senators to ask questions during Question Period and make statements. This is important when we evaluate the testimonies that we receive, we play a critical role. It is not because someone would state something that we need to consider it as the truth. We need to cross-check the information and this data is very important. I think it should be circulated again.
The Chair: A couple of observations as chair. It seems to me that what we have is a record of testimony that needs to be captured in the report. As Senator Batters says, that is just the record of testimony; it is not a report as such. The question that we need to get our heads around is the following: Is this a report on which we wish to make observations/recommendations or rule changes? It seems, at least to me, that we should have the record of testimony and get the additional data that has been spoken about. If you take the last two years, let’s say, I wouldn’t mind knowing how many questions were asked by individual senators. That would place the independent senators in the context of, at least, that numerical distribution in addition to the material that Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Wells referenced. That would be helpful for us.
I would suggest that rather than rule changes, which I think would be inappropriate at this time, we consider best practice recommendations. That is to say, it should reference the role of the GRO in ensuring that independent senators — whatever the number is — are aware of not only the day-to-day unfolding of the Senate but also perhaps some of the broader issues that come up from time to time that are conveyed through groups and structures.
It is also important to reference in the report that independent senators choose to be independent senators, not affiliated. Just as there are consequences to senators who join groups in terms of the means by which they are able to express their priorities and give attention to issues that are of significance to them, there are consequences to not choosing to join a group and we need to acknowledge that in the report.
We are also talking about two kinds of non-affiliated. There are those non-affiliated that have just joined the Senate and have yet to see whether they wish to remain non-affiliated or to affiliate in some fashion. So far, in the experience, people have affiliated; it may be after several months, it may be after several days. But that’s slightly different, in my view, than those who are committed to a non-affiliated status for the period of their tenure. Definitionally, we should look at that differently.
My view is that we don’t need to spend a lot more time than, in a sense, drafting a report along those lines. We have testimony, best practices that have been discussed or observed in the course of our work and having the whole Senate understand the role of non-affiliated senators over time.
Senator Yussuff: One of the points that may also be helpful to give people a bit more insight is if you were to also have the data on the independent senators’ introduction of private member’s bills that have been introduced and how it has made it through the system. Then it gives a fulsome appreciation of how they are treated rather than just taking a particular point on Question Period and not seeing the full gamut of responsibilities within the chamber.
Senator Batters: First of all, of course, there is no limitation. Anyone can bring forward any number of private member’s bills, and there is total freedom on, unlike even the House of Commons where they have to go through a lottery system.
The report also needs to include the problems that the non‑affiliated senators who testified here saw with the system and whether or not some senators think that the data bears that out or not. I don’t know if we will have a listing of every senator and how many questions they ask in Question Period on an ongoing basis, because Senator Yussuff indicated earlier that he doesn’t choose to ask questions in Question Period. That may not be as helpful, but what we need to hear is that we did have non‑affiliated senators actually come here to testify. We did not have anyone from the government representative’s group come to testify about what their communication is with them. Obviously, I think that as it exists, no matter who the government is, you need to have that kind of rapport with all senators in the chamber, whether they are in a group or non-affiliated, because of what can happen if you start having one or two senators calling bells all the time, as has existed in the past. We have had that sort of situation a number of years ago.
One further thing that I forgot to mention before is that with scroll, while all senators receive it now — sometimes just shortly before we’re going into the chamber — the non-affiliated senators, unlike the groups who actually have someone designated participating in the scroll meetings every day, do not have that. They are not allowed to go to the scroll meetings and that needs to be set out. So while they may get the indication as to what is projected to happen during the day, of course, senators can get up at any time and some do, even some who were previously in leadership positions and decide to make a supposedly last-minute speech. The scroll meetings are not something that non-affiliated senators have any ability to attend or have any impact on. They simply just receive the email that comes out much later.
Senator K. Wells: I have two observations. I am wondering if we want input from the current GRO and their philosophy — as we have a new Government Representative — to give them the ability to weigh in on this issue. Second, as we are gathering the data that is requested on how many times a senator has asked a question in Question Period or made a statement, we also have to put in the caveat of the length of tenure of the senator. Also, we need to go back further than two years because of prorogation which disrupted things. Let’s say five years. That’s an important factor as people are coming in and leaving. We cannot just compare them straight across if someone has only been in the chamber for a year versus someone who has been there consistently for five years.
We have to take the data at face value that we’re able to obtain, but we also don’t know who has been in the chamber consistently during those times to have that opportunity as well. It is a small piece, but we should not put too much weight into that. There are too many variables and factors to get something that says this is the absolute, concrete data with that. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, there are a couple of things that I am hearing. The first is to address the data gaps. That could be something we ask of our analysts. The second is if there is an appetite to invite GRO to come and speak on this issue from their perspective. I throw that open. Third, it is early days, perhaps, but are we prepared to move to a report that would capture the testimony we have heard, the best practices that have been discussed here in terms of accommodation, and to, notionally, work toward a report that we can submit before the Christmas break? If that’s not the case, I would be interested in knowing what subject matter, other than what I have referenced, should be part of our next meeting on this subject.
Senator Saint-Germain: First, I support Senator K. Wells’s recommendation that we have a witness from the GRO. We don’t have them. It is the current GRO, as you have said, and there may be important information that would come from there. Second, I support the fact that other than this additional testimony, we have all the evidence that we need. We need more data, more breakdown with the data. I would add to the plan that you proposed, chair, that before we make observations regarding best practices, we also conclude on the principle of the study, equality of all senators, so non-affiliated senators and — we need to conclude with this — the rights that they have, the equality and when they have it, and perhaps some processes or practices that we should improve in order for them to be, I would say, more and better informed regarding the debates and the proceedings in the chamber. With that, I think we will be ready sooner than later.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, chair. As you described how the report might look, I wanted to maybe put a pause on the question of best practices and how we operate here. Best practices are not always best practices for everyone, and we have seen that. We’re discussing the role of non-affiliated senators, and the way we make decisions in committee is a vote. I don’t know if I feel comfortable at all, if we were discussing best practices and I thought something perhaps wasn’t the best practice and it went to a vote, I lost the vote, and then all of a sudden, it becomes part of the best practice — not recommendation, but consideration. I want to ensure the terms of reference for what we’re delivering to the Senate is clear and that it includes a consensus aspect rather than a hard up-and-down vote on something that may not be fully agreed upon.
The Chair: Yes, I think we will know that when we see it, right? I appreciate your comments, but I don’t think we can conclude that until we see what we have before us.
Senator D. M. Wells: Unless it is part of the terms of reference. Then there is a conclusion from it, and that conclusion may be based on a vote on a topic that may be anathema to a vote, that should perhaps be a consensus consideration. So if —
The Chair: My only point is that’s —
Senator D. M. Wells: — the terms of reference —
The Chair: — best debated when we have something in front of us rather than a theoretical.
Senator D. M. Wells: Right. But you are the chair, and you mentioned consideration of best practices, so I wanted to make sure that if that was going to be set in stone, that we’re going to be making a consideration of a best practice, that it not be based on an up-and-down vote, which is how we —
The Chair: Yes, best practices in a sense of observing what works well or what could work better. We’re not instructive here.
Senator White: I wanted to agree with Senator Wells’ suggestion of having the GRO present. As someone that attends scrolls regularly and has for the last year, I see a process, although not solidified in a procedure, where the non-affiliated are talked about or mentioned or considered by the GRO. I would like to hear from them if there is a formalized process or if it should be more formalized. That’s what I wanted to add.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Busson: I have been listening to everybody’s comments, and, certainly, it would be helpful if we had a good analysis of what the complaints were from each of our non‑affiliated senators. It is individual to this Senate how we operate and the observations of our non-affiliated senators. This committee could then decide whether or not it is a problem that affects the equality of each of the senators. Of course, equality is a nebulous concept, especially as it operates in this environment.
At the end of the day, we have to decide whether we’re a solution looking for a problem or that there is actually a problem that we want to either address with observations, as you say, chair, or with recommendations. I just wanted to say that I think equality is a very theoretical concept in this environment. We should have a discussion around that as well. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly appreciate the discussions that we are having. Chair, I also support that we need to move on a report. On all the items that we have looked at, it seems to perhaps be a communication issue. We can’t legislate or rule on communication. Our report should put forward some observations — and we can’t force people to communicate. It has to be a practice.
I have no objection in requesting someone from the GRO coming in front of us, but I don’t think that it should be limiting us time-wise in regard to asking for a report to be drafted and for us to be moving forward, and I would like for us to have a report tabled on this issue and concluded before we adjourn for the Christmas break. That would be my best-before date. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Actually, I would like to appear as a new senator. I remember realizing quite quickly my first week that, if I remained independent as a senator, I wouldn’t understand how things work.
I admire how the two non-affiliated senators seize their opportunities. They have many years of experience, and they know when to speak. During discussions on Senator McPhedran’s bill, for example, we heard a very interesting conversation. She knows when it’s necessary to comment.
I wanted to add that yes, it is a choice we make, but sometimes, there’s an uneasiness in the chamber, especially regarding where non-affiliated senators are seated. The Speaker doesn’t always see them. Some adjustments are certainly needed. I would also like to add that, once completed, the committee’s report should be included in a welcome package for all new senators, so that they understand what it means limitation-wise to be non-affiliated.
[English]
The Chair: The issue of seating and recognition by the Speaker is not unique to where the independents are sitting, I should just add.
We have a couple of things on which we can move forward, that is to say, invite the GRO. We could begin a draft report that would begin with the testimony that we’ve heard or whatever, perhaps identifying observations or whatever language we use. I haven’t heard anybody say this should be a rule change.
Based on the comments made by both Senator Youance and Senator Busson, I’m wondering if, in the observations, we should comment on expectations. Expectations of senators may be different with respect to the right of equality and the expression of that in terms of Question Period time or the pace of their legislation. Senator Batters is right; everyone can introduce a Senate public bill, but I sense from at least some of the commentary that there was a concern amongst one of the non‑affiliated senators that their bill didn’t advance as quickly as they had wished. I suspect that’s not an uncommon feeling either. The context of this has to be contextualized in expectations and real procedures to accommodate, I guess. Remember, at this point, too, it has changed over time, of course.
Senator Surette: To get back to the question of equality, it’s a difficult one.
In order for me to fully understand, it seems like I would need to know, me as an independent senator within my group, what my privileges are and what my access to speaking otherwise is within my group versus another independent senator from every group to compare with the non-affiliated. The data is going to bring us a certain amount of information. If I don’t want to speak or I don’t want to ask a question, I can, but I have certain limited access to that.
To fully do a good study, it would be very interesting to know, in terms of equality or proportionality, how we compare within each of our groups.
The Chair: It’s hard to get a rational, independent and scientific approach on that, though.
Senator Batters: I’m not really sure what that would accomplish, as every group is very different, of course.
The thing I wanted to say is I would also be interested to hear from the current Government Representative’s Office because one of the things that they did a couple of months ago, unlike the Government Representative’s Office for the last 10 years, is that they have actually comprised a group now. They used to always be listed, including when you would see them on television. Under the government leader in the Senate, it would say “non‑affiliated,” which that person is as affiliated as you can get. It doesn’t say that anymore, as now it is part of the Government Representative’s Office, and that is something new. I’m not really sure what all the ramifications are, but it would be interesting to find that out when someone comes to testify here.
The Chair: I think we’ll be inviting them to testify in light of this study. I can’t say what questions you can ask, Senator Batters, but I think the invitation would be with respect to this study.
Senator Petitclerc: This is a very interesting conversation. I’m hoping that we find a balance in being efficient. I would love to see that maybe before the end of the year. That would be great, but I also see that there’s an opportunity to do it well and to make sure that we really pinpoint and articulate the gaps.
It’s a very difficult conversation on what is equality. Of course, if you choose to be in a group, it comes with certain — I don’t want to say privileges — differences. There is a choice there, and I get that, but there are also gaps and I think maybe a desire to use this opportunity to really define what those gaps are and provide whether it’s guidelines or best practices, however we want to do it.
We need to take this opportunity to bring something that will be helpful for those who choose to be non-affiliated.
The Chair: Just in response, I think it would be helpful for our analysts to have a sense from the group as to where those gaps are, in your view.
Senator Petitclerc: In my view, I would say what Senator Ringuette said in terms of communication. I would appreciate hearing from the GRO.
I think everyone wants to make sure that every senator has access to what they have the right to do in the chamber, whether it’s statements or something else.
One big gap for me — and I don’t have the answer — is knowing that a non-affiliated senator needs to somehow go shopping a little bit to see who has a spot and they can give them a favour. To me, that’s a problem when it comes to equality. Also, some gaps include how to make sure that there is somehow a representation of non-affiliated senators in different committees. Again, maybe it’s communication or that they need to be at the table more.
I don’t have all the answers, but I think there are some gaps. I think as the Senate, we would want to see that non-affiliated senators, whatever reason they choose to be non-affiliated, have the same opportunities to do the work that they want to do, as much as possible. There will always be differences. If you’re in a small group or a big group, we recognize that. But I think there are some gaps that we can identify and try to find best practices or solutions for.
The Chair: Right. This is really an issue of accommodation as opposed to rule changes, in my view, but ensuring that there is voice given to expected best practices or expected approaches.
Senator White: I just want to comment on Senator Petitclerc’s concern about shopping around. In our group, we actually have to shop around. There are so many people who want to speak, and we only get one spot. There is a lot of give and take and looking at who has guests, all these kinds of things. I don’t think only the non-affiliated senators have to shop around. I just wanted to raise that point.
The Chair: Fair point. Colleagues, can I try to sum up where we’re at? We will ask our analysts to get into drafting a report beginning with what we’ve heard — hopefully pulling from what we’ve heard on observations that we can at least speak to, additional data that has been requested and extending an invitation to the GRO to appear, hopefully, at our next meeting to speak to the practices of this GRO with respect to independent or non-affiliated senators. If you could, in your own work in preparation for next week, think through in your mind what are the observations and recommendations, that would be helpful.
My objective would be, as Senator Wells has urged us, that our recommendations and observations are a consensus, because I don’t think it’s appropriate, in a sense, on a subject like this, to do otherwise, but we’ll see. If we can aspirationally finish this before Christmas, fine. If for some reason our work doesn’t advance at that pace, that’s the nature of our work, so that’s fine. The report has to recognize that there are obligations to accommodate and there are expectations that need to be understood. If that’s okay, I would suggest that we move forward on that basis.
That concludes the business for today.
(The committee adjourned.)