THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 9, 2025
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Peter Harder, I’m a senator from Ontario and Chair of this Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. I am Senator Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Busson: Welcome. I’m Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
Senator Yussuff: Senator Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: Allister W. Surette from Nova Scotia.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: We are meeting today to continue our study on non-affiliated senators.
[Translation]
We are pleased to welcome the Honourable Pierre Moreau, P.C., Government Representative in the Senate.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before our committee. I invite you to make your opening statement, after which we will open the floor to questions. Thank you.
Hon. Pierre Moreau: Respected colleagues, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about the role of non-affiliated senators and the support they receive from the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate, the GRO.
I would also like to thank the committee for its excellent work over the past few months, and I apologize for not appearing in person during your study of question period with a minister.
[English]
I want to first highlight how the Government Representative is the first point of contact for new senators. Before a senator joins a group or a party, senators begin their vocation in this chamber as non-affiliated. It falls upon the Government Representative and his office to lay the foundation for a supportive relationship. The Government Representative answers questions and ensures that new senators feel welcome and informed. This onboarding process is essential in helping them navigate their new responsibilities, which can indeed be overwhelming in the first months.
[Translation]
In our daily activities, the GRO staff play a vital role in providing important information to the various offices of non-affiliated senators. Before each Senate sitting begins, my staff provide updates that go beyond what is provided by the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office. The information and details provided to them include the length of speeches, adjournments and key information on votes.
[English]
At scroll meetings, the GRO senators are diligent in presenting items identified by non-affiliated senators. A recent example is Senator Brazeau’s request to discuss his bill regarding warning labels on alcoholic beverages. We promptly acted on this request, ensuring that a non-affiliated voice was heard among our colleagues at scrolls. This proactive approach extends to scheduling slots for non-affiliated senators during senators’ statements and questions at ministerial Question Period.
[Translation]
In addition, the GRO staff are in constant communication with the offices of non-affiliated senators to provide them with information on various parliamentary activities, such as ministerial appearances, tributes, the government’s legislative calendar and important votes. That helps non-affiliated senators become more familiar with the work of the Senate and to participate in chamber proceedings more actively and in a timely manner.
[English]
Moreover, GRO senators regularly engage with non-affiliated senators in person, both inside and outside the chamber. For instance, we provide information on rules and procedures, guidance on standing votes and reports from committee, equipping them with the information they need to contribute meaningfully to the debate and ensuring their involvement in the legislative process.
Finally, I want to note how the GRO extends invitations to all non-affiliated senators for important events such as budget lock-ups and legislative briefings. Let me conclude my remarks by adding that the support the GRO provides for non-affiliated senators is to foster an inclusive and collaborative environment.
I look forward to your questions and your eventual report, which will certainly help us strengthen the Senate’s commitment to greater inclusivity and collaboration. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator. We will now go to questions.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much for being here on your busy day. I’m impressed with the number of things that your staff do to keep the non-affiliated senators apprised of what is happening and keeping the doors open for them to be valued contributors.
We all know when the Senate is sitting, there are dynamic changes and things that happen moment to moment with different agreements and stuff. Is there anything in place or would you suggest anything that could help to make sure the non-affiliated senators are aware of any new changes during the midst of the sitting or any agreements that have been made between facilitators to perhaps change the agenda?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
In reality, when there is a change, a member of my office staff tries to reach out to non-affiliated senators and inform their staff of the changes that are taking place.
Unfortunately, in the case of last-minute changes — the quickest changes during a chamber meeting — it is not always possible to reach them, meaning that an attempt is made to contact them, but it’s sometimes impossible to reach them.
What I would suggest, when these changes occur, is that it be a shared responsibility between the Government Representative’s Office and the groups that are represented. Sometimes, these changes occur as a result of efforts made by certain organized groups in the Senate. Since this is a group initiative, I believe the group could try to communicate with non-affiliated senators, but my office will attempt to do so in all circumstances. I don’t know if we can incorporate something into the Rules that would enable us to formalize this approach.
Of course, when I was preparing my testimony this morning, I thought to myself that there are currently two non-affiliated senators in the Senate, which clearly makes the job easier. When we make rules, we make them with a 5- to 10-year perspective, or perhaps even longer. There is no guarantee that the number of non-affiliated senators will not increase. The rules we establish must be applicable in the event that the number of non-affiliated senators increases significantly. In that context, I believe that sharing the responsibility of keeping non-affiliated senators informed would help us achieve our objectives more effectively.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to note that Senators Batters, White and Downe have joined the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Senator Moreau, for joining us this morning.
Has the government looked at how other Westminster-style systems deal with non-affiliated members, and what lessons has it drawn for Canada? We can always learn from other models, but we cannot always reinvent the wheel.
Senator Moreau: In preparing this morning’s briefing, I did not conduct an exhaustive study of what was happening in other Westminster-style parliaments with regard to non-affiliated senators. For example, I know that in England there are crossbench peers. There are many of them. I agree with you that we could draw inspiration from what is done in other parliaments. However, I cannot tell you whether the responsibility lies entirely with government representatives or with what would be something like a government leader in the Senate. Nevertheless, a very good lesson can certainly be learned here. In any case, we can always draw inspiration from the best practices elsewhere.
Senator Loffreda: Quickly, considering the fact that there is no infrastructure or team for non-affiliated senators, do you think the government should play a role and give them additional resources? If so, what resources would those be?
Senator Moreau: I will not comment on the additional resources. However, I would say that responsibility should also be assigned. Being informed is a two-way street. Non-affiliated senators should be required to designate a point of contact in their office to whom the clerk, the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate or organized groups can refer when information needs to be communicated quickly.
Independent senators need to know that, in a Westminster-style parliament, unforeseen situations can arise during the day in the preparation of the scroll. If I may say so, it’s a bit like saying that the fire department is open, but you don’t know at what number to call the firefighters when you need them. There should be a requirement for non-affiliated senators to designate a point of contact with an email address, a number for text messages and a phone number. That way, when information is crucial and urgent, it can be sent to them. I have checked with the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate and with my predecessors, and I do not think it can be said that there is an intentional scenario to keep these people uninformed. It is often difficult to reach them when a completely unforeseen situation arises, which is nevertheless part of the normal course of parliamentary or Senate proceedings.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Loffreda, I want to make reference to the fact that in the previous Parliament when this committee studied this issue, it heard from representatives from the House of Lords, the French Parliament, as well as the House of Commons on this matter.
Senator Loffreda: This is my first appearance here. I’m happy to be here.
The Chair: We’re happy you’re here.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for joining us today, Senator Moreau.
You mentioned this briefly. I am trying to understand what we heard from the last few meetings, not from the study we had previously undertaken on the spirit of collegiality. We think it’s working. Your office is collegial, and each group acts with a sense of collegiality. I’m trying to go beyond that. In absolute terms, if that collegiality did not exist or no longer existed, what would happen?
In 2024, Senator Lankin said that, for a non-affiliated senator, the only way to be part of a committee — which should be a right for every senator — given the procedure, was to beg for a seat from the leaders of each of the groups. I know this is not directly your responsibility. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel that there is a dynamic whereby a non-affiliated senator is always in a position where they have to beg for participation, a chance to speak or a question? Is that a problem for you?
Senator Moreau: That’s an excellent question. Yes, I feel that a non-affiliated senator has to work hard to establish themselves, whether it’s to ask a question, to comment or certainly to vote in a committee.
It should be noted that being a non-affiliated senator is a choice. However, that choice should not be made at the expense of the senator’s participation in Senate debates. In the context of an independent Senate, the possibility for a senator to choose to remain non-affiliated must be recognized.
A change could be made regarding distribution. Instead of reserving one seat for a senator, a certain number of seats should be reserved for non-affiliated senators, regardless of their number, or perhaps there should be a rule that varies according to the total number of non-affiliated senators. I understand that your question is trying to look ahead to the future in order to establish a permanent rule.
This would allow for the creation of ranges within which non-affiliated senators could participate in a certain number of committees or have the right to speak, either in the chamber or at committee meetings. This way, with a view to an independent Senate in the long term, greater leeway would be given to senators who wish to be non-affiliated, on the one hand, and perhaps even greater pressure would be created for groups to recruit them, on the other hand.
I am still a young senator in terms of my length of service in the Senate. I remember very well that, when I arrived here, the first person I met was Senator Gold, my predecessor. He explained to me how the Senate worked. The first warning he gave me was that I would be the most popular person for the next few weeks, as all the groups would want to have lunch, dinner or supper with me to tell me how amazing they were and why I should join them.
Yes, people are charming. We can get an idea of the current chosen by a group to decide our affiliation. However, it could very well be that, at the end of the exercise, none of these currents will be dominant enough for a senator who wishes to remain non-affiliated. However, learning that their rights are lesser than those of a senator who is part of a group becomes a disadvantage for them. It is perhaps at this point that we see memberships in groups that are not entirely voluntary, but rather memberships by default. As far as I am concerned, in the context of an independent Senate where we must value the presence and contribution of each senator as an individual, there is indeed a gap.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Moreau, for being here.
In the short time you have been in the responsibility of Government Representative, how often do non-affiliated senators contact your office regarding the agenda of the day or the agenda of the week and seek information from your office specifically about what is coming up and how they can be engaged in the process?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you for the question.
I checked all of this with the person who is responsible for liaising between my office and non-affiliated senators. Essentially, it’s the other way around. My office, after the morning scroll exercise, will communicate with the non-affiliated senators. Later, between the end of the scroll and the start of the sitting, we will send an update, as there are elements that are constantly changing in the scroll until the Senate begins to sit. In general, communication flows from the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate to the non-affiliated senators.
How often do non-affiliated senators call or contact the office? This is usually done through their staff. I am told that it is relatively infrequent. It should be understood that there are currently only two non-affiliated senators. It is rare for them to contact the office.
However, when contact needs to be made, the staff of non-affiliated senators are well aware of whom to contact in my office. They are usually available. I know that this person is one of those who works very late into the evening and stays here until the end of the day.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: So what you’re saying is that essentially it is a formality. Your office takes the responsibility to let the non-affiliated senator be aware of the evolving agenda of the Senate, and they can do accordingly. If they have some issues or they want to raise a point, they will let your office know, I would assume, in the process of you letting them know what is happening on that.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Absolutely. We operate on an open-door and open-dialogue basis. If non-affiliated senators wish to contact us, they can do so at any time during the day. The person in charge of relations with non-affiliated senators is always available during this time.
Incidentally, I should tell you that I’m quite available for them myself. Just last weekend, I was clearing snow from my front entrance when the phone rang. It was a non-affiliated senator calling to see whether we could pass a bill at third reading. He wrote me an email. I gave him my cellphone number and a few minutes later, we talked about this matter.
I try to make myself available to all senators, but also to non-affiliated senators. This gave me the opportunity to take a break during my exercise.
[English]
Senator Batters: Senator Moreau, the Government Representative’s Office for the previous 10 years of the Liberal government being in power actually designated those senators affiliated with your office as non-affiliated. It was a little ironic, perhaps the most affiliated that a senator could be, being affiliated with the government was technically, on the Senate website and on the TV banner under your name, it was indicated what the position was, but it was also indicated non-affiliated.
Then this fall though, you have now changed that. Those senators who are affiliated with the Government Representative’s Office are now noted to be that both on the website and on television under the banner of your name.
I’m just wondering what differences have resulted from that. Is there an increased dollar amount that is perhaps paid from Senate resources? I know that your office as Government Representative or government leader, you receive a $1.5 million office budget. Then there is an extra office budget for your deputy, and for the government whip. I am wondering if there is an extra amount paid for the group, now that it is actually affiliated as a group?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: My answer to your question is no. As far as I know, no extra money is paid. That said, some positions receive additional compensation, but not all. I think that your question is related to the operating budget. It hasn’t been changed. The banner or designation of the senators who belong to the GRO has now been changed to “group of senators representing the government”. The Rules were amended to ensure that the Government Representative’s Office is now seen as a group. A motion to this effect was tabled for the duration of the session. However, this doesn’t affect the office’s funding.
[English]
Senator Batters: I’m wondering then, with your previous background you were a member of a partisan caucus in the Quebec provincial legislature for 10 years. And — more than that?
Senator Moreau: More than 10 years.
Senator Batters: How many years, sir?
Senator Moreau: I was elected first in 2003 and I was defeated in 2018.
Senator Batters: Okay. No breaks in between there?
Senator Moreau: Well, a very short break of about eight months.
Senator Batters: Right, then you were a chief of staff?
Senator Moreau: For 11 years. I was in a very specific caucus.
Senator Batters: Exactly. During that time break, you were perhaps a chief of staff for a little while, I think?
Senator Moreau: The Justice Minister, vice-premier and it’s the same guy, but he had many portfolios. I was chief of staff for about eight months, I would say.
Senator Batters: Thank you. During the time that you were elected there, you were a house leader, you were a deputy house leader, you were a whip. With that previous background in those kinds of capacities, I’m wondering if you made that decision to have your Government Representative’s Office designated as a group. Did you make that choice to help make your arrangement a little more like a government caucus, with anything that would help to alleviate? If it wasn’t that, then what were the main reasons you decided to do that?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: When we expanded the Government Representative’s Office, I explained in the notes and in my remarks why I wanted it to grow from three to five members. When I was appointed, I realized that the Parliament of Canada Act allowed the Government Representative’s Office to have up to five members. Given the independent nature of the Senate, I felt that it was important for the Government Representative’s Office to ensure geographical representation of the whole country.
By taking the option of increasing the number of members from three to five, it seemed that we would have a better representation of the country, such as the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the West and the North. That’s basically the first reason. Second, we wanted to have a better chance of reaching senators.
We’re talking this morning about non-affiliated senators. With a five-member Government Representative’s Office, it’s easier to reach the senators wherever they are in the chamber. It’s also easier for the senators to get in touch with the Government Representative’s Office.
We each have quite busy schedules. I realize that my schedule is quite full. I don’t have the opportunity to talk to all the senators as often as I would like to.
With more members in the office, we can keep better track of the needs or requests that come from senators and we can obtain better information on the issues that affect the country’s regions. In 1867, the Senate was first created as a Chamber of Regions. It seemed important to ensure that the Government Representative’s Office had regional representation.
This has nothing to do with my career as a member of a government in Quebec. Honestly, I don’t see the connection, or I’ve never made one.
[English]
The Chair: We will move to second round. Before I go to Senator Wells, I want to respond from my experience on the issue of the title. When I first got here, I sought to be identified as an independent. I was informed by Senator Housakos that was not possible. I had to be identified as non-affiliated, which we did. I didn’t see anything different about it. That was the term that was in our Rules for those senators who were not a member of a group.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you, Senator Moreau, for joining us.
My question around committee allocation. That seems to be shaped by the different groups, by the leaders around the table. For non-affiliated senators, it is very ad hoc. Could you speak about what you know currently about that process and if there are ways that could be more streamlined or improved or formalized?
Senator Moreau: The budget?
Senator K. Wells: No, just the seats. Getting on committees and how the number of seats are allocated to different groups, often proportionality.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I wasn’t a government representative when the discussions took place to determine the number of seats allocated to each group. I gather that, after the leaders of each group took part in arduous negotiations, they decided on the number of seats in each group for the Conservatives, the Canadian Senators Group, the independents and the progressives. In French, we would describe this as a tug-of-war.
I’ll get back to Senator Petitclerc’s question. I gather that non-affiliated senators don’t have much of a say in this process.
I think that a permanent rule would be to determine the number of representatives on committees by group, based on the number but with a maximum. We would create ranges, where the maximum would be reached above a certain number. For example, independent senators currently have a disproportionately high number of seats compared to the other groups. This would prevent a given group from occupying all the seats on a committee. We should create ranges with a cap to ensure a balance.
Let’s not forget that the Senate isn’t a chamber of elected officials. Democracy takes place in the Senate on the basis of ideas, reasoning and possible improvements to bills. This balance shouldn’t be strictly and directly tied to a number, but rather to a variety of ideas that may be expressed around a table. We must bear in mind that a Westminster-style Parliament should provide some protection to the official opposition in the House of Commons, however large that opposition may be, given the votes cast in the House of Commons. I said this in my remarks. In the Senate — and Senator Batters will correct me if my figure isn’t accurate — the Conservatives currently have 13 members. However, they won 42% of the vote in the general election. We must remember that one factor remains, and that factor is the official opposition.
The groups should include a range that applies to independent senators. That way, we would see fewer arduous negotiations over committee membership in a future Senate.
Senator Surette: Senator Moreau, my question has two parts. First, you talked about collegiality, information sharing and communication with the two non-affiliated senators under the current structure. Would your answer be the same if we had 10 non-affiliated senators, or would you need to consider a new approach with these 10 senators?
You also spoke of scroll meetings, which are again about information sharing and communication. This means that they aren’t necessarily part of the discussions or negotiations, as is the case for the leaders and facilitators in other groups. Could you think of another approach or structure that would help give them a say in agenda preparation and discussions, or is this more of an issue for non-affiliated senators?
Senator Moreau: You asked a good question. I’ll start with the first part and proceed in order. The response to the first part may address the second part.
Right now, a recognized group must include nine senators. I believe that this range should apply to non-affiliated senators. In other words, to ensure collegiality, if the number of non-affiliated senators exceeds nine, the nine senators would need to determine a central point for directing communications. Despite all the good will, when the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate shares information, it communicates with the groups, meaning the Conservatives, the independents, the Canadian Senators Group and the progressives. This means focusing efforts on a group. It won’t always be possible to make 12 calls to 12 non-affiliated senators.
If the number of non-affiliated senators were to exceed nine, I would propose a change to the Rules in order to introduce a requirement to create a drop-off point or registry for non-affiliated senators. The groups and the Government Representative’s Office would need to send the information to this point in order to keep things manageable.
I don’t know whether I answered both parts of your question.
Senator Surette: You didn’t talk about what we would do, for example, if we had eight senators.
Senator Moreau: We need to keep things manageable. I spoke about nine senators because, under our current Rules, nine is the requirement for a recognized group. The threshold could be lower for non-affiliated senators and set at five, for example. However, starting at a certain number, a centralized communication system should be in place in order to effectively share the information in question with non-affiliated senators.
Senator Youance: Senator Surette asked my question. We talked about numbers and the number of senators. If we went back to a percentage-based number, I don’t know whether this would complicate things. Are we looking at things in terms of the total of 105 senators or the number of senators in the chamber? There are currently seven vacant seats. Would the solution be to proceed by number of senators, rather than by percentage?
Senator Moreau: Are you talking mainly about non-affiliated senators?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Senator Moreau: I wasn’t talking about a percentage in relation to the number of seats. In my opinion, we should look at effective representation. In a democracy, we must always keep effective representation in mind. We could have 105 senators, but the Constitution lets us appoint eight more. Should we then have 113? The answer is no. I believe that we should proceed based on the number of non-affiliated senators. Above a certain threshold, non-affiliated senators should have access to a central point for the distribution of information.
Senator Youance: Let’s say we turn the Government Representative’s Office into a group. If, for example, nine non-affiliated senators were to form a group, wouldn’t that cause confusion?
Senator Moreau: No. By nature, the non-affiliated senators will never form a group, because they’re non-affiliated.
The reference to the numbers that I’m giving you — whether it’s nine, eight or less, as Senator Surette pointed out — poses a problem. Regardless of the number identified as the correct figure, the goal is simply to create a central point for information. We need to decide on a drop-off point so that the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate and other groups that want to communicate with the non-affiliated senators can simplify the process of passing on information. This wouldn’t involve forming a group. It would be contradictory to remain non-affiliated and then to form a group.
[English]
Senator Batters: When you were first appointed to the Senate, Senator Moreau, I think we had just started that fall session, so it wasn’t like a time frame where we weren’t sitting in the Senate. I think you came either right before or perhaps we had even just started that fall session. You were listed as non-affiliated for a short time, I think maybe less than two months — six weeks to two months or something like that — and then you joined the progressive group.
During the time you were still non-affiliated, you didn’t speak in the chamber. You didn’t make any Senate statements, ask QP questions or make speeches. I’m wondering if you tried to speak during that time and had trouble because you weren’t a member of a group, if you have that experience from the short time of being non-affiliated.
I’m also wondering why you decided to join a group. Did you always know that you would join a group in the Senate and it was just a matter of choosing which one you would join?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Good question. Perhaps it will help give you a better understanding of who I am. I was appointed in September, if my memory serves me correctly. I was absent at first, since my previous life prevented me from being in the Senate for some time. I didn’t start sitting until October. I didn’t ask any questions or give any speeches because my mother taught me that we have two ears and one mouth. In other words, we should listen twice as much as we talk. When we arrive in a new environment, we must pay attention in order to understand how the environment works.
In my first few weeks and months in the Senate, I discovered a new environment, even though I was used to a parliamentary environment after working in one for 15 years. There’s still quite a difference between a provincial legislature and a federal bicameral system. I wanted to get a better idea of how things work and how a chamber composed of unelected people can react.
For example, during the question period, when answering questions in a parliamentary or elected assembly situation, we may get the impression that the person who asked the question won’t be around in four years. In the case of the Senate, this isn’t the case. People are here for 8, 10, 15 or 20 years and more, in some cases. Our relationship with others must be analyzed. That’s why, at first, I wasn’t frustrated by the Rules. Instead, I was disciplined enough to figure out that I would first integrate into my new environment and then start speaking.
Senator Gold, a very wise man, gave me exactly the right assessment of this environment. As soon as I arrived, I had meetings with the groups. Even before I arrived, some groups contacted me to say the following: “You have been appointed to the Senate, and if you wish, we can organize meetings with the groups.”
I let the groups do their job, analyzed the situation and ended up deciding to join a group. I honestly saw no advantage in remaining non-affiliated if I wanted to maximize my impact in what I considered my contribution to the Senate. You asked about the role and impact of a non-affiliated senator. I think that non-affiliated senators are currently at a great disadvantage in terms of their ability to speak in the Senate.
Given that we can’t change the Rules if we deem them inadequate, I decided to join a group. Why? I felt that I could have a greater impact on the work of the Senate. Shortly after joining the group, I made my first comments in the Senate concerning a topic of particular interest to me.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: I think we’re talking about a perceived problem that fluctuates between the two current members who are independent. At different times, they did belong to groups that were organized in the Senate. They made a choice that they didn’t want to do so, but in that context, similarly, new senators coming in the chamber from time to time — and I was one of those new senators who arrived here in the summer and took the entire summer to determine which group I was going to join.
Senator Moreau: It was not a walk in the snow.
Senator Yussuff: It wasn’t a walk in the snow, but also, I figured I had time. The Senate was adjourned, and I had the opportunity to certainly reflect based on what different groups had suggested about joining them.
Given all you’re doing from your office currently to try to reach out to unaffiliated senators in regard to the agenda and how they can possibly be engaged — and for that matter, from time to time, as you did on the weekend, somebody contacted you about their bill, wanting to know how that process could possibly be an advantage for them.
Do we really have a problem with unaffiliated senators not having a voice in the chamber, from your perspective?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: After reading the evidence given by non-affiliated senators a bit earlier in your proceedings, I noted that they found it difficult to obtain information or to keep up with changes made between the scroll meeting and the chamber proceedings. You asked whether this was a real issue. Given that we’ve hardly spoken with the non-affiliated senators since I became responsible for the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate, this doesn’t strike me as a major problem.
I would like to address Senator Petitclerc’s excellent question about the prospect of an independent Senate and the role of non-affiliated senators who made that choice. The Governor General first appoints us as non-affiliated senators. We then decide whether to become affiliated, but this must remain a real choice. In my case, upon my appointment, I felt that it wasn’t in my interest to remain a non-affiliated senator indefinitely. This was my personal choice and my analysis of the situation. This doesn’t mean that someone else’s analysis would be the same.
In this situation, the Rules mustn’t turn a non-affiliated senator into a second-class senator. That’s why I told our colleague, Senator Petitclerc, that it must be a real choice. To this end, the Rules must ensure that non-affiliated senators can ask questions and actively participate in committee proceedings and the Senate in general.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Senator Moreau, I would like you to elaborate and hear additional thoughts from you on this issue.
As we know, any senator present can object to a request for leave. How do you see the power of a no held by non-affiliated senators affecting requests for leave, given that any single objection blocks leave? Not to put you on the spot — although many witnesses say please do — but I ask that given the current Senate modernization efforts are under way, does the government or the GRO office see a need to define the role and rights of the non-affiliated senators more explicitly in the Rules to ensure consistency and fairness over time or do you feel the status quo is fine?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Good question. Since there aren’t any party lines in the groups, a progressive senator, an independent senator, a Canadian senator or a Conservative senator, regardless of their choice of group, could block consent. The same goes for a non-affiliated senator. I don’t think that this situation concerns non-affiliated senators.
We need to ask ourselves the following question. Can a single senator block consent? A parallel can be drawn with all parliamentary systems. This applies to the Quebec National Assembly, the House of Commons and here. The principle is as follows. Certain rules must be followed. If we want consent to bypass these established rules, we need everyone’s consent. This isn’t about blocking the way. The oppositions or people who refuse to give their consent can’t prevent Parliament from working. However, they can delay Parliament. We often hear that the opposition’s only weapon is control of the clock. However, just because you can control the clock doesn’t mean you can stop it. It will continue to run, but at a different speed.
In my opinion, the parliamentary system is based on the fact that everyone can speak and that the oppositions can speak. The ability to express opposition is actually a matter of loyalty to the Crown. If we were to take away a senator’s ability to oppose consent, regardless of the senator’s status, I believe that we would be violating a key democratic principle. This principle states that ideas can be argued all the way through to the end. The democratic system ensures that the majority prevails.
[English]
Senator Downe: You correctly identified that the problem is how do we have non-affiliated senators equal to other senators. Under the current system, everything is focused on putting a funnel to get new senators to join a group. To paraphrase George Orwell, all senators are created equal but some are more equal than others. That’s the problem we have.
So the problem is that if, down the road, someone is appointed to the Senate that no one wants because all groups have to agree — that person’s rights are what we’re concerned about — how do they participate? The consensus would be that would fall to the responsibility of you or whoever is in your office at the time to do an outreach to them, and you’re doing that now, but you don’t have the capacity to assign seats to them on committees. You don’t have the capacity to give them Question Period.
Are you prepared to reach out to the other groups if that situation arises? Even among the current non-affiliated senators, if we have a situation where a senator is saying, “I can’t get a question. No one will give me a question. This question is very important to some community I represent, I want to ask it. No group will give me a spot,” are you prepared to use the force of your office, the goodwill of your office, to intervene with other groups to give them some equality?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Good question. We could do this, but it’s a matter of negotiation. In my view, a senator’s right to speak on the same basis as another senator shouldn’t depend on a negotiation. This right should be tied to the appointment as a senator. In that case, perhaps we’ll find a group kind enough to let the senator ask a question.
However, within the groups themselves, I’m hearing — although I don’t have any proof — that some senators are already trying to jostle each other for the right to ask questions. If the Government Representative’s Office also tries to approach this group to say that a non-affiliated senator wants to ask a question, they’ll tell us that they already have enough problems with their members without having to add more to the list.
It reminds me of that old story. A skydiver jumps out of a plane, pulls on his parachute and the parachute doesn’t open. He sees a man coming up. The man has white eyes and his face is completely black. He asks the man, “Do you know how this works?” The man coming up replies, “Look, I have enough problems with my barbecue, so sort out your own parachute.”
In my view, the rights of a non-affiliated senator shouldn’t be tied to successful negotiations. Non-affiliated senators should have recognized rights, even if these rights state, for example, that they can’t ask a question in every Question Period. However, at some point, they will have the right to ask a question. They won’t have access to all the committees, since they’re on their own. That said, they will have the right to speak before any committee they deem appropriate. They chose to remain non-affiliated, so they feel that their choice helps them to have an impact.
I think that we should focus on recognizing a right rather than on negotiating permission.
[English]
The Chair: On Senator Downe’s question, I just want to point out that 10 years ago we instituted a sessional order to provide rights to senators who were not in the traditional groups. That might be an opportunity to revisit how sessional orders have evolved to accommodate situations as they occurred before rule changes.
Senator Batters: Following up on this line from Senator Downe, you said to Senator Moreau that rules cannot make non-affiliated senators as second-class citizens, but the thing is that they do right now. The reason we’re here today is because of the omnibus changes to the Senate Rules motion in spring 2024, shortly before you came here, and it was forced through by the government with time allocation. It really did cement equality of groups in the Senate and took away — to the detriment of equality of senators that we really had before. We’re here because in eight pages of rule changes, non-affiliated senators weren’t mentioned anywhere in it. Then it was Senator Gold’s idea, well, maybe we should get the Rules Committee to study it when, frankly, nowhere in those omnibus rule changes did it even include — it could have included things like guaranteeing maybe one question a week or something like that in Question Period. No. The words “non-affiliated senators” weren’t even mentioned in that.
One thing I wanted to ask before we wrap up here is: Who specifically from your office deals with non-affiliated senators? I thought I heard you perhaps say the liaison, then I thought I heard maybe a staff member. Is it different people for different times? I’m wondering what the different positions in your office do or is someone assigned to deal with non-affiliated senators?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: It’s always the same person. It’s the person who helps Senator LaBoucane-Benson during the scroll period. The person responsible for the procedure is in the best position to inform non-affiliated senators in real time of any changes that may have occurred. It’s always the same person who is clearly identified to the non-affiliated senators.
I would like to follow up on the introduction to your question. I think that Senator Gold was right to ask the committee to look into the situation. A rule must be in place to ensure that no group gives up its rights at the expense of another.
I think that the independent Senate of today must hold this principle dear. We must make room for all senators so that they aren’t considered second-class senators. However, this doesn’t mean that every senator, depending on their group or lack of group affiliation, will have the same opportunity to speak.
A non-affiliated senator can’t expect to have the same impact as a senator from the official opposition or a senator from the largest group represented in the Senate. We’ll never create a perfect situation. That said, at least we’ll end up with a situation where there isn’t just one type of senator with rights, and other types of senators with permissions. This seems incompatible with the order in council for our appointment. Our order in council takes the view that everyone can make a vital contribution to the Senate of Canada. If people are asked to become senators, they must have the opportunity to make an impact within our institution.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your participation. The hour is up. Senator McPhedran has just entered and has asked to ask a question. With your indulgence, could we go beyond the two minutes that I have extended?
Senator Moreau: I’m the one who would give you the permission to do that? I feel that I’m very powerful.
The Chair: I’m asking whether you’re prepared to do that.
Senator Moreau: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thanks for that generosity. I appreciate it. I have been following this. I have three different things happening this morning. I want to express appreciation for not only the written statement, but the nature of the conversation that I have been following this morning.
Senator Moreau, I want to make sure I have understood a fundamental point I think you have been making here. It’s related to the oft-repeated phrase “All senators are equal.” Obviously if I had been here, I would have appreciated and understood probably better your comments. But I’m gathering from what I’ve been able to watch and read that you are making a point about there actually being a substantial difference between being a non-affiliated or unaffiliated senator and being a senator who is a member of a group.
As the one who has probably been in that position the longest in this current configuration of the Senate, I wanted to ask whether you feel that the restrictions or the lack of opportunity in certain respects for a non-affiliated senator actually amount to a form of discrimination?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you for your question.
I don’t think that it would be a form of discrimination. Instead, it would be a type of distinction that shouldn’t exist. I would make this qualification. In other words, our Rules shouldn’t make any distinction regarding the ability of a non-affiliated senator to choose to remain as such, provided that the Rules ensure that the senator can fully participate in the debates. I made a distinction with regard to the official opposition for reasons that seem obvious. Specifically, a disproportion may remain in the capacity.
Of course, a non-affiliated senator can’t physically participate in all the committee meetings. As you said, you were in three places at once. That’s already a lot. However, it would be good to have the opportunity to ask questions and to have the same rights as senators who belong to groups. This distinction shouldn’t exist, in my opinion. All the Rules should ensure that non-affiliated senators can participate more effectively in the Senate proceedings.
The Chair: Thank you for your remarks today, Senator Moreau.
[English]
Honourable senators, I propose that we continue our discussion — as per usual, we won’t go in camera, if that’s okay — on how to proceed with this study. When we last convened, and identified future witnesses, this was our last witness that we identified.
We have work under way in terms of a draft report. The Library of Parliament and our staff are working on a summary of what we have heard, of the evidence. We also have, as you recall, some questions around statistics that we asked for. That work is under way and will be available at our next meeting.
It might be useful to open it up for a general discussion as to whether and what nature of recommendations we may wish to make in our report beyond simply a summary of testimony that we have heard, and some direction to our staff for the work that they could perhaps do during the break. I open it up for comments, and would welcome any direction that senators wish to provide.
Senator McPhedran: On the process that you have just described, may I ask if the considerable amount of evidence from the previous consideration of this issue is being blended and will be treated with equal attention?
The Chair: Exactly. We did that many weeks ago.
Senator Yussuff: As we were deliberating about today and the past, something struck me. I’m not as familiar with the rules in the other place around independent members of Parliament and how the rules allow for them to partake. I know it’s very structured because of the nature of partisan structure of the other place. But it might be informative to us, just in the context of understanding a little bit how the elected place operates.
From time to time, there are independent members in the other place. I think it might provide some context. I’m not aware of the totality, in my experience, so might be helpful if we understand that in terms of might be a recommendation for consideration.
The Chair: As I mentioned earlier, we did have a witness from the House of Commons. I’m going to ask our analyst to provide a response, and perhaps enhance the response that we have.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: In the drafting of the future draft report, we include reference of the procedure applied in the House of Commons, for example, the fact that they were, in the previous Parliament, limited to the forty-ninth spot in debates and such things, the question of the allocation, in that case, the nullification of committee seats, so we specifically referred to those facts provided by the two witnesses on October 1, 2024.
The Chair: You’re raising an interesting point for the committee, that is to say, whether we have any recommendations to make to the Senate with respect to enhancing the accommodation of non-affiliated. I think that’s something that we need to get our heads around.
Senator K. Wells: In that vein, perhaps a simple recommendation is that we recommend that the GRO establish a formalized contact for all non-affiliated senators. It seems to be very much on an ad hoc basis now. So regardless of who is in the GRO, that would be one of the responsibilities of one of the positions.
Right now, obviously, there are five, as we heard, that provide maybe more time and attention as opposed to having three in the past. I guess that would be up to the GRO to decide, regardless of the number, who that contact was.
Senator Batters: To Senator Yussuff’s question and as the analyst briefly referenced, there was a panel. I thought it was two officials from the House of Commons who came to give us detailed information about the things that the House of Commons does offer independent MPs that the Senate does not and then the drawbacks of certain things.
The speech order in the House of Commons is one drawback. In the House of Commons, as far as independent MPs, I believe every week there are one or two allocated Question Period questions that they get near the end of every Question Period. So they do also have some pros from their point of view. All of that was made part of our committee consideration when we got that order of reference from the Senate indicating that the previous testimony would be considered on that, so that was something that had some substantial part to it.
I really think the reason that we’re having this study, the reason that we’re here, is we need to ensure that our report gives sufficient voice to the concerns of the non-affiliated senators. None of these issues are necessarily that new, but they provided some detailed and very cogent testimony at the start of this whole proceeding about what their concerns are. Senator McPhedran alluded to what the concerns continue to be.
Whether there has been a little movement since then or perhaps, as I was referencing, things might have gotten a little more cemented to making it less of an equality of senators and more of an equality of group situation, that needs to be the primary focus. We won’t know what problems potentially need to be fixed unless we have sufficient noting of what the problems are.
Senator McPhedran: I actually wasn’t aware of this examination until quite recently, or I would have been here earlier.
For members of the committee that were not involved in the previous examination, I wanted to just share with you in a personal way. I’m a human rights lawyer, and I spent quite a number of years in the early years when, for example, sexual harassment in the workplace became a legal option. I represented a number of clients, women. It was interesting how often the employers would say a version of what I think I heard here this morning — I won’t attribute it to a particular speaker — and that is, “Well, you chose to work here. If you don’t like it, you can leave. That’s the way we do things here.”
The Chair: I didn’t hear that testimony, just for the record.
Senator McPhedran: I have notes, so that was the impression. But let me go on to say that on the point of this being our workplace, I think it’s relevant to bear in mind that, in effect, senators don’t have access to their Charter rights in this workplace, in effect because of the bubble of self-governance that the courts have reinforced over and over again. So I’m very grateful that this iteration of Rules is looking at this issue still.
I just want to share, as a closing comment, that this is my workplace, and I don’t think I should have to choose to accept being discriminated because I’m a non-affiliated senator, and I’d appreciate it if that perspective was added to your considerations.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Downe: I think Senator Wells is correct. The solution to this may very well be expanding the mandate the GRO to take this issue under their authority on a continuous basis.
We heard this morning that it is being done now, but as you indicated, it’s on an ad hoc basis. An extension of that would be some of the concerns I raised; if they can’t get questions, maybe a quiet word or whatever. But I think the Government Representative’s Office has to have the lead on this.
I support what Senator Wells said earlier.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, everyone.
[English]
This is a very important study. I feel we have an opportunity, and I said that at the last meeting. I’m hoping that we can articulate clearly the differences, the challenges of a non-affiliated senator to just do what they want to do, to do their job, as we mentioned. I’m hoping we can do that and really position the difference. I’m thinking about a newly appointed senator arriving and knowing exactly what the field of play is right now. I do think that in a report, we can mention certain levels of collegiality, because we have heard that anyway. We have heard that. But I want us to think about the absolute. If there is no collegiality, or when there is no collegiality, what happens? If there are 10 new senators and they choose not to affiliate, what do we do then? I’m hoping that we can go and find some recommendations, solutions.
We have heard a lot about the state of things, how it is happening now. I’m not sure that we have questioned ourselves and our witnesses on what we do next. I don’t know how we can make specific recommendations. We did have some hints and ideas. We do have some proposals, I suppose.
If the goal is to make sure that a non-affiliated senator — if that’s not the goal, then we need to articulate that. If the goal is that a non-affiliated senator has the same access to what they want to accomplish without having to ask for personal permission, then we need to have that in sight and find a way to propose recommendations and solutions.
That would be my two cents.
Senator Yussuff: I think this process of engaging on this question provides some rich knowledge of how different systems operate and what we can benefit from in regard to where we’re going in terms of the recommendation.
I do like Senator Wells’s suggestion, because I think what it does in the context of the GRO, there is a conscious effort to outreach to independent senators in regard to the scroll development and what is happening in the chamber, votes and what have you.
Getting into the specifics of recommendations, it would be nice to have a summary of what we have heard so far. Maybe we can come back after the break with some deeper reflection as to what we might be able to accommodate. I do appreciate learning from the experience of the House of Commons and the system of our parliamentary structure. It might benefit us in looking at that in a broader light, given what we have heard from other systems in other places, also with the approach that new GRO leader is taking as to how his office is now operating.
To get to the specifics in terms of recommendations, I would hope we can come back after the break and look at the summary and provide some deeper context as to what recommendation we can land on.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to add that we started the study with 12 non-affiliated senators. Now there are only two. We need to show that, even if there were only one, this study should be carried out.
We need to show the need to take into consideration the status of non-affiliated senators. In the end, just as Senator Moreau did, when I arrived, I saw no reason to remain non-affiliated.
The way things work, we tend to . . . In fact, we’re practically forced to join a group. I said this at the last meeting. I admire Senator McPhedran’s ability to participate, almost on an equal footing with all the other senators. However, it’s personal. Another senator may not have that ability.
We really need to emphasize that the purpose of the study is to ensure fairness among all senators. This must come across in our study.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I am happy to be here this morning. My thought is this is an extremely important study and analysis. Despite the fact we only have two non-affiliated senators, the Senate and politics are always a dynamic process. It’s never static. I don’t want to open up a can of worms either, but we don’t know the future are of the Senate. Will it be more of a partisan chamber? Will political parties come back into power? We don’t know Prime Minister Carney’s point of view on this — not in detail, anyway — so I think it’s an important study going forward in the modernization of the Senate as to where we take it. I think it’s extremely important.
I agree with Senator Yussuff. Maybe we could extend the study and think about it over the holidays. I haven’t been here for the past committee meetings. I’m replacing Senator Saint-Germain this morning.
It’s not to be taken lightly. I think it’s very important that the non-affiliated senators have the same rights. Who should take that under their wing? How should we come to that conclusion or that analysis? Also, what you’ve heard in the past. It always has to reflect the witnesses and the testimony we heard. My thought and opinion on what I heard this morning and the analysis and reading I have done is that it’s an important study not to be taken lightly, despite only having two non-affiliated senators now. In the future, there could be many more.
The Chair: I want to assure you, Senator Loffreda, this committee has not taken this subject lightly. We have devoted numerous hearings to this, as well as those in the previous Parliament, the testimony of which was brought into this committee’s considerations, if I can put it that way.
Senator Loffreda: Just the fact you are analyzing and studying it gives a lot of respect to non-affiliated senators. The thought is there. What can we do more? If not, we wouldn’t be here. I’m satisfied with that response.
Senator Batters: Although, at the same time, the intention should not just be “they meant well.” Something good needs to actually come out of it.
One of those things that I wanted to mention was that we did also have a full panel a year ago, almost exactly, with Senator Yonah Martin, who was Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate for a few years. We also had Senator Carignan talk about the ministerial Question Period issue.
Senator Martin was here talking about her experience when she was Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. She was the primary contact — her herself, not a staff member — with some very active, independent senators that we had at the time, such as Senator Cools, Senator McCoy and Senator Rivard. All of them knew the rules well and used them. Believe me, if you didn’t know the phrase “the power of no,” you sure got to know that phrase very well.
It wasn’t just nice for the government to be able to have contact with the non-affiliated senators who existed at the time, but it was an essential part of their job because they could absolutely bring every issue in the Senate to a halt with a simple “no.” That was very important, and Senator Martin took that duty very seriously, as she indicated in detail in her committee testimony.
Something I also wanted to mention is that, when I was earlier discussing about the omnibus set of Senate rule changes that came into effect about a year and a half ago, another part of that is the fact that not only did that cement equality of groups to the detriment of quality of senators, but it also cemented equality of only five groups because only five groups under those rules get power and money. If there happens to be another group formed — say if the largest group broke off into two groups, and then whatever became the smallest group out of that — that sixth group would not receive power and money. They would essentially, in a lot of ways, be an affiliated group but have no benefit of out of it, almost like a group of non-affiliated senators. That was the rule changes.
The Chair: The Parliament of Canada Act limits the number of groups, but the rule changes, I agree, they are aligned.
Senator Batters: The rule changes set out about the five.
The Chair: Right. The Parliament of Canada Act started that, though.
Senator Batters: It started it, but then the rule changes cemented that about the five.
Senator McPhedran: I have a couple of comments to make. One is just to point out that the study that was initiated in the previous Parliament was at the request of unaffiliated senators. We were very well received by the chair at the time, who took a leadership role.
I would like to speak more to the proposal from Senator Wells. It’s not the first time that this has been a proposal in terms of the GRO. I would like to urge this committee, in considering your recommendations, to not just punt this to the GRO. That’s my daily reality. The GRO has already accepted responsibility for me as an unaffiliated senator. I do have to chase them. That’s just a practical reality. It doesn’t flow regularly. It often doesn’t flow in a timely way. I’m very grateful to Senator Moreau for some of his observations this morning.
My suggestion for your consideration around recommendations is that you spend some time thinking about outcomes. What are the outcomes? If you go for the GRO proposal, what are the outcomes that the GRO should be delivering to the unaffiliated senators?
I also want to suggest that in looking at the evidence, I’m sure we would all agree that in making comparisons, it’s useful to have meaningful comparisons. To have meaningful comparisons, we have to look at equivalencies. I would just note that the House of Commons is about four times larger than the Senate. There is evidence from the committee in the previous Parliament of other jurisdictions with some of greater equivalency to the Senate. I would hope attention would be paid to those.
To the point about the “power of no,” I love those anecdotes. I have such high regard for predecessors in the position that I have, but I do want to add to the record that exercising that “power of no” has real consequences. I have no protection. I’m an easy target because of my non-affiliation and probably also because of positions that I often take. As a result of that, when Senator McCallum was a colleague in this category, we paid very close attention to what the consequences were going to be. What was the punishment that we were going to receive, likely by whom, if we were seen to obstruct?
As tempting as it is to feel a moment of power, it’s a very dangerous option in the practical reality of navigating this workplace.
The Chair: I would like to summarize where we are and perhaps give some direction to our staff.
I think it would be helpful to have the summary of evidence. There are statistics we requested that are being worked on that will be provided. I think this conversation has led to ripening some of the considerations we might come back to in terms of possible recommendations, or we might see gaps as we see the evidence. At our next meeting, which would be the first week of February, we will have that material in advance, and that we should come with a view of determining whether or not out of this there are some conclusions around which we can achieve a consensus. If there are further discussions to be had, we should have them.
It’s important that we move this along for our own sake, but also so that whatever we have to say gets to the full body of the Senate so that the considerations we bring forward can inform our colleagues, and to the extent that we have recommendations to make, they can be advanced in that forum. Is that okay?
In terms of forward planning, we have had earlier conversations, and we have the CONF recommendations, we have the committee’s report, we have the e-petitions. There was in the last meeting some discussion of getting a start on Senate public bills. That is the list of agenda items as I have them. If there are further items for us to be considering, we can do that when we’re back, but we’ll follow the order in which we identified them at our last discussion of this subject.
If that is all agreeable, I can call the meeting to close.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee adjourned.)