THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 3, 2026
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: Honourable senators, I declare the meeting in session. There are two things I would like to do before we begin formally. As you know, our previous clerk, Maxime Fortin, abandoned us rudely and is now sitting beside the Speaker and guiding the Speaker rather than us.
I would like to welcome, on your behalf, Céline Ethier as the clerk of this committee.
Second, I would remind you of the audio feedback prevention guidelines, which we have reviewed on many occasions.
There is a card that you can consult. Keep earpieces away from microphones at all times. Microphones should not be touched. Activation and deactivation will be handled by the console operator.
Thank you for your cooperation on this as we wish to ensure that our staff are appropriately protected.
For our audience, my name is Peter Harder. I am a senator from Ontario, and I chair the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
I now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator D. M. Wells: My name is David Wells, senator for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Burey: Good morning. Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: I’m Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, senator from Charlottetown.
The Chair: Thank you all very much.
Senators, before we begin our agenda, I would like to confirm that we wish to continue in public as has been our practice. I would like to seek the concurrence of the committee that that is the procedure we should be following.
With that, the item before us is the draft report of this committee with respect to the mandate regarding independent or unaffiliated senators. That report has been circulated. I know there has been some comment on some aspects of it. What I would suggest, if it is agreeable, is we review it section by section to see whether there is concurrence with the report as being drafted.
If that is agreeable, I’ll start with the introduction. Are there any comments with respect to the introduction?
Hearing none, concepts and principles. Are there any comments on that?
Issues raised by non-affiliated senators? Equality? Access to information? Participation in chamber proceedings? Legislation? Participation in committee proceedings? Role of the Government Representative’s Office in the Senate? Best practices.
Senator Downe: Yes, thank you, chair. I have a proposed amendment. I have copies in both languages to be circulated.
Basically, what I’m concerned about is that in this day and age using a paper document of a scroll is not only dated, it is not timely. With the current technology available to us all, we could have a scroll in real time. As you know, there are four different groups in the Senate. I’m not sure what other groups do, but I can speak for the Canadian Senators Group, or CSG. We have had a digital scroll for the last year and a half, which means we get constant updates as events in the Senate evolve during the day. We may be notified that there now may be an intervention by a senator that wasn’t on the paper scroll, here is a copy of an amendment, there will now be a vote by so and so.
I think all the members of the CSG find it extremely useful, and I think it would be of particular use to the non-aligned members. I think it would be helpful for all senators to have it. The technology is not that difficult and the staffing is not particularly onerous either, because in our case one person just follows along and inputs the information as it is received throughout the sitting.
I have my proposed amendment before you for consideration.
The Chair: Comments?
Senator Ringuette: I would like to support that based on the fact that the clerk assisting the Speaker is also the clerk that is at scroll in the morning. And that clerk always updates the Speaker on changes to the daily order. I agree that technically, it should be easy for the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, or COPO — whomever they want to assign to manage this — to provide an updated version. Some days there might be no updates and some days there might be many. I think it would go a long way in regards to non-affiliated senators and each and every one of us. So I support this amendment.
Senator Saint-Germain: First, I want to thank Senator Downe for proposing this amendment and having it sent to us timely. I also support this amendment because I believe that it will also be beneficial to all senators. Even if we at the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, also have an updated scroll, sometimes there are last-minute changes that we are not even informed about. So I think it is very important.
That said — and I have discussed this with Senator Downe before submitting this — I would like to propose an amendment that would allow for this committee to receive and approve the formalized practice that COPO, in cooperation with the deputy leaders, would develop. It could read something like this, after the first paragraph: The committee requests that this formalized practice be submitted to the committee for its approval.
You can improve the English but that’s the idea. Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you, Senator Downe, for your amendment. I also stopped at that second bullet. I guess my question with this amendment is whether COPO or GRO is better poised to keep the non-affiliated senators apprised. My understanding is that sometimes given the negotiated nature of changes to the chamber schedule, COPO might have a delay in being able to inform the non-affiliated senators about any last‑minute changes or the heads-up we are looking for.
I would go maybe with GRO here in changing the wording. The wording I would have for that bullet is:
The committee strongly recommends that GRO and the office of the government leader in the Senate — and at times the office of the government leader in the Senate develop and present to the Senate a formalized practice to ensure all senators, including non-affiliated, receive timely.
Who is best positioned to do the work? Is it COPO? Is it GRO? If it is GRO, I would suggest a little change further down to add an additional best practice bullet that talks about COPO adding the links to the motions, which Senator Martin had identified, which was noted in the report at paragraph 26.
I’m sure that’s clear as mud. But the core is: Is it GRO or COPO that is best positioned?
The Chair: If the committee would allow, I would like to comment on this. In my discussion with our staff they raised concerns about the role of COPO in servicing senators directly because of the non-political nature of their role and issues around will they have the information in a timely fashion to pass on. There are times when deputy leaders keep information amongst themselves and that sort of thing. And how procedurally it would happen and what kind of resources it would take.
I think there is a way to bridge, with the amendment Senator Saint-Germain has suggested and your comments, senator; what we would like is the scroll, which is chaired by GRO, to work with COPO and determine a process that can come back here for blessing if I can put it that way. In other words, I don’t want to predict that it should be GRO or COPO or the scroll itself. There should be a mechanism that is sorted out at that table.
My bottom line is it will operationally be COPO, with their concerns being addressed and taken into account in that discussion.
It is just a suggestion for the committee to consider.
Senator Downe: I think both amendments have the right intent, which is to improve what I’m suggesting. I have no trouble following up with you, chair. You summarized it well.
At the end of the day, we want to have, in real time, information in front of all senators of what is about to happen in the Senate, not after it happens, changes that occur throughout the day, and everybody is equal in information. It doesn’t matter if you are a member of the opposition or the ISG. Everybody will have the same information in real time.
Senator Saint-Germain’s amendment of having the proposal come back to the whole committee is extremely helpful to that end. We can pick out any problems, whether it is GRO or COPO. I think we are all on the same page.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Senator Downe, for putting this forward. It is a good idea and the right thing to do. I also support Senator Saint-Germain’s amendment to that.
I did a procedural seminar in Westminster last year, and I took one of the copies of their daily handout. I agree with a dynamic, electronic changing of things, because in our system, things change quickly. And itt is important for all caucuses and the non‑affiliated senators to know what is happening.
In their booklet, they had significantly more detail than we have, a rundown of who will be speaking and what they will be speaking on. Even in members’ statements, it was listed what they would be speaking on. There was some knowledge. Sometimes we have a great interest in what our colleagues might speak about, and I thought that was a good thing. I brought it with me. I don’t have it here, but I may give it to the clerk for some future consideration.
It also had listings of what the committees were going to be studying and that sort of thing. Of course, any senator can attend any committee. If we are going to consider something for the future, that might be more comprehensive than just chamber operation. That might be a good model to go by. I’ll put that forward.
The Chair: Was it the House of Commons?
Senator D. M. Wells: It may have been the House of Commons.
The Chair: The House of Commons is more predictable. That’s why I asked.
Senator D. M. Wells: It may be that, but it may be a model that our committee could consider.
With respect to Senator K. Wells’ comment regarding the question of whether it is GRO or COPO, I’m in complete alignment, chair, with your comments that the GRO, a political body — as are the Conservatives a political body — and the natural dynamic of the chamber, motions can come up any time, and the GRO may not know if I’m going to provide a motion, and I may not want them to know. I think focusing all that through COPO, with the political involvement, as we do at scroll, would be the right path.
The Chair: Other comments?
Senator Ringuette: I agree with Senator Wells. I think that this communication piece should not be an item of partisanship or parties. It should be absolutely neutral.
There is already a process where COPO provides the scrolls, the Order Paper. I think the venue is best there.
If the committee wants a suggestion by COPO and the GRO, so be it, but I really don’t feel that the GRO, as a political entity, should be the venue to provide that. It should be coming from a neutral organization, and I think COPO is the one to do it.
Senator Burey: I would also like to add my agreement and support for this wonderful amendment from Senator Downe. I also benefited from this being a new member of the CSG when I came. It certainly helped me to understand a little more what was going on.
I also support the additions to this amendment by Senator K. Wells and our esteemed Senator Saint-Germain.
At this point, I also wanted to thank the clerk and the committee for the tremendous amount of work that has been done in putting this forward.
Also, from a larger perspective, when we focus or elevate what is happening to the margins, which would be the non‑affiliated senators, it also impacts the whole. This is going to make it a much better process for any new senator coming in and is going to improve the functioning of the whole.
Thank you, my colleagues. I’m very privileged to be here.
Senator Downe: Senator D. M. Wells made an excellent suggestion. What he is saying is that we could have an enhanced scroll, which I had not thought of before. Basically, we are looking at the same document they probably looked at 25 years ago.
With the new capacity we have now to do it in real time, why can we not have a list of the Senators’ Statements topics? We don’t need the speech, just put the topic, such as “War Veterans” or the “CRA,” and additional information could be added over time.
I’m glad Senator Wells passed that document on. We should take that into consideration as we have this evolve over the next number of months and years.
The Chair: You are not necessarily saying for this report?
Senator Downe: No, not for this report.
The Chair: But we’ll come back to it.
Senator Downe: In Senator Saint-Germain’s amendment, when they come back to us with what they are proposing, we could start long-range planning so we have additional information.
Senator Batters: I apologize; I was a little late, but I didn’t think being 10 minutes late would get us to page 20 already. There are several things, even typographical errors, that I noticed in the first pages when I went through this, so maybe I can go through that with the clerk later so that we don’t have a report with those kinds of issues in it.
I tried to watch the video as I was in the cab today, but, for some reason, the video wasn’t working on the committee website.
Senator Downe’s amendment, when I reviewed it yesterday, what I thought is that this seems like something that I personally think should be more of a government responsibility. The government, for the last 10 years, has wanted to have a more independent Senate. As a result, these types of things, having more non-affiliated senators, that sort of thing, is going to be a corollary of that. I think it should be something that the government has a greater responsibility for rather than putting it on deputy leaders of the other groups as much as them. Also, I personally do not think that we require having even more senator administrative staff for this purpose, to take on something that should be the government’s responsibility. We have a Government Representative group right now that had, for the longest time, three members in it. Now it has five. That’s quite a small number of senators, yet they get a sizable group budget of about $1.5 million, $1.7 million a year.
It is to everyone’s benefit to have a Senate that works well, but at the same time, it is to the government’s primary benefit to have a Senate that is passing their legislation and making things go through in quick fashion. That is not always the role of the opposition, so I think having all of these groups have some sort of a say on it.
There is another factor that I just learned about yesterday — and I’m not positive, maybe it was just someone mistaken — but I was talking to a senator yesterday in a different group. I asked him what different roles were in their group’s leadership team. He told me in their group he wasn’t sure what the deputy leader did because he voiced the view that a liaison role in their group was the role that handled scroll matters. I’m not sure if that’s correct or not. Is it definitely the case that all the deputy leaders are the ones that have the responsibility for the scroll? I would have thought so, except when I had that conversation yesterday, I wasn’t certain about that.
I think that, rather than putting it on to another administrative proceeding, probably then Senate Administration will tell us we need more staff to handle this and to have the deputy leaders of all the other groups have responsibility for it, I really think it is a primary function of the government. The Liberal government has set up the Senate in a certain way for their leadership team, and I think they should have more responsibility for that.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to everyone who made that report. I also want to support both amendments. Thank you for this, Senator Downe.
Also, I don’t have a specific recommendation or ask, but I like the fact that on the amendment — it is a little detail — the changing of “suggest” to “request.” I would like to see that tone even on the other bullet as well, “recommend” or “request.” Maybe we can be a little more assertive in the tone when possible in that report. So that is more of a general comment just to take a position that we strongly feel that this needs to be addressed.
The very simple one would be just on the point 66. Then the one that Senator Downe asked. Then the one under, in French it says “suggére,” so if we can maybe have something that is a little stronger, I would appreciate that.
A more substantive comment maybe. When we go to 56 — and we have it in different places as well in the report; I’m thankful for that — we have the proposal of the position of Senator Moreau that was reflecting what the non-affiliated senators talked about when it came to challenges being in committees.
[Translation]
There may be a more uniform approach, with ranges.
[English]
So he has a bit of a proposal that should be explored, in my view. I wonder if there is a way we use that part and somehow put it in a bit of a proposal or that we would like this to be explored as well.
I understand it is a bit substantive. But I feel that the way that the report puts it, we just put what Senator Moreau talked about, which is reflective of the concerns of the senators. But we don’t translate it into a proposal or an observation.
The Chair: I wonder if it would be helpful, to accommodate that point that you are making, under the best practices section to reference that paragraph and encourage elaboration.
Senator Petitclerc: Or exploration, that would be what I would like to see, yes.
The Chair: Is there broad agreement, colleagues? Okay. Now, we have had the broader conversation around the amendments of Senator Downe and the subamendment or the amendment to the amendment of Senator Saint-Germain with the comments of Senator Wells. It has had broad but not unanimous support. Do we want to have a formal vote on this or is there a broad consensus that the paragraph be included, as amended by the three senators involved?
Senator D. M. Wells: While I’m in agreement with the changes, I would rather not have a vote until I see the actual wording. I know that may delay us, but the delay would be to make it correct.
Senator Saint-Germain: Chair, if I may, paragraph 56 and Senator Moreau’s views, is an opinion but it needs to be further thought about. So if we make it a proposal, I would have some nuance and explore the interests and possibilities because we don’t know what it is.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Saint-Germain: I see downsides and upsides so we need to further study that.
The Chair: I think the word “explore” would be the appropriate word to add.
Senator Busson: I support what is being said. I think as we move forward, we need to keep our eye on what we are actually trying to fix here. I think the amendments do that. I support your suggestion around having the experts decide how that might happen. I’m not sure if it is helpful but I was interested to hear what Senator D. M. Wells had to say about Senators’ Statements. Perhaps if we added the word “statements” to the amendment that was proposed by Senator Downe, we put information on statements, debates, votes, bills, and whatever, be more consistently explored. That might invite a solution to that issue as well, about being able to know what the statements might contain as we move forward. Just a small suggestion.
I also want to exploit Senator Burey’s sentiment around the great analysis done of this very difficult and complex topic by our staff and thank them for that.
The Chair: What I would suggest to accommodate Senator Wells’ suggestion, if it is agreeable, is that I would work with the staff so that we have circulated the amendment later this week. This is the Senate, after all; a week is not lost if it is a way of finding a broader consensus. We could come back to this next week to confirm and formally adopt the report if that’s agreeable. Perhaps at that point, the suggestions that Senator Batters has made with respect to some of the language can be incorporated as well.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m not suggesting we add this right now or during this discussion about what the report should look like. However, the topic of Senators’ Statements has been brought up a couple of times. For me, that seems like an easy one. I know it may not be for others, but it seems like an easy one. Also, there is the question of what committees are studying. Unless I’m highly engaged in something that a committee on which I do not sit is published somewhere and I can go find it. In the old days when I came here, which are actually the old days, there would be a post on the elevator in Centre Block and you would see what committees are studying. Of course, when we moved, there was no post, there was no elevator. So I found that helpful because you would be in the elevator daily and you would have a look at the post.
This suggestion of what the committees are studying doesn’t seem to be controversial. If the committee would agree, I would like to add that to our consideration as well. And maybe take my comments here as not necessarily testimony but additions to what other witnesses contributed.
Senator Downe: I think Senator Wells’ comments and his experience in the U.K. when he was at the session has intrigued us all. I think the first step will be trying to get the current scroll on a digital basis so everyone has it, particularly the non-aligned. Then let’s do an enhanced scroll that’s different than it has been for 25 years for the very reasons that Senator D. M. Wells has outlined. I think there’s a real appetite for the second part. I know I’m certainly interested in it.
The Chair: Are you okay with that, senator?
Senator D. M. Wells: I would agree with that.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, did you have your hand up?
Senator Ringuette: No, just to say that I support this.
The Chair: Are there any other comments with respect to paragraph 66?
Senator Ringuette: I have two different items on two different bullets. The third bullet from the bottom says, “The committee acknowledges that recognized groups and parties may have a flexible level of affiliation as each group and party” — this doesn’t bring anything, and it is not part of the Senate Rules, I’m sorry to say, how the different groups or parties have “admission structure.” This is absolutely not relevant to the study that we were mandated to do. I believe that we should remove this.
The Chair: And your second one?
Senator Ringuette: The second one is the last bullet, which says, “The committee believes that groups and parties have, where applicable, an obligation to accommodate non-affiliated senators.” That is extremely strong. I believe that, from my perspective, the different groups and parties have made efforts to accommodate. If the general consensus within our committee is to foster greater communication with non-affiliated senators, I would say, “The committee believes that the groups and parties should accommodate non-affiliated senators.” I think it is our view, but it is not, as it is saying here an obligation. We’re not in the position, as the Rules Committee, to create an obligation on groups and parties. I would say that “groups and parties should accommodate.” I think that’s a friendly way of doing it. Those are my two comments.
The Chair: Let’s take them separately, if I could. On the first, is there broad agreement to remove that paragraph?
Senator Batters: Actually, that was something that one of the international witnesses — I can’t recall which one. I’m not sure if it was from the House of Lords or the French Senate — said that is quite a common practice. They brought that up specifically as something that could be.
Certainly with our groups, I think it’s reasonable to say that we do have flexible levels of affiliation within the different groups. One of the international witness’ point is that perhaps non-affiliated senators could be accommodated in those kinds of ways, and perhaps they have a certain level of affiliation with a group in order to accommodate certain rights that they would receive for belonging to that group but then not other things. That’s a reasonable thing to include, especially because we don’t have a lot anywhere in this report noted about different things that we learned from the international witnesses, and I think that was a valuable point that they brought up.
Senator Yussuff: More on the last bullet, we have a bit of history here with senators who have been part of a group and then not part of a group. The notion of accommodating them in regards to committees and what have you is always going to be problematic in the context of history. We need to be realistic about that. It is not an obligation nor is it — we might consider it. But the reality is, we should recognize, at least for the time I have been here, most of the people now sitting as independent senators at one time were part of groups and have chosen to leave those groups. Sometimes groups will reflect on what their politics are in regard to accommodation of others.
I think we need to be honest with ourselves and not put language that is going to create tension. If you put in the Rules, you are going to do the following. If you are not obliging that accommodation to happen, how do you respond to that? Without creating unnecessary tension down the road, we should do this with eyes open going forward. That’s my only suggestion.
The Chair: Do you support the change that is being proposed?
Senator Yussuff: Yes.
Senator K. Wells: Certainly, I support what Senator Batters has said on the third bullet there. I think we do want to include what we have heard and lift that out. That is important.
In the overall scheme too, it is important to remember that we are making best practice suggestions; we’re not making recommendations. The language is what the language is. These are not “thou shalt.” These are things to consider with what we’ve heard and that we have chosen to lift out and make evident.
The last bullet simply as well, “the committee believes that groups and parties, where practicable, work to accommodate,” I don’t think we need to hash out the language too much rather than obligation. I understand that obligation can convey maybe something different to different people. The point is, we’re saying that we consider these best practices. This would be the appropriate group to consider these best practices. At the end of the day, if they do them or not, it will be their choice, and that issue could come back to the committee down the road.
The Chair: So are you supporting the change to “should” rather than “where practicable” and “obligation”?
Senator K. Wells: I do support that. “Should” or “work,” whatever language we use without losing the intent of the bullet. As well, keeping the third bullet is important.
Senator Petitclerc: In terms of the first bullet, I also agree with Senator Ringuette. We did hear it, I remember as well, but I don’t see the relevance, especially in this section, because it is not directly linked to what we are trying to tackle. I wouldn’t object to not having that bullet at all or maybe to mention it somewhere else in the report, if we want to. I understand your point.
For the last bullet, I just want to point out, perhaps it is a nuance.
[Translation]
The French states that “les groupes ont le devoir” . . .
[English]
In English, it says it is an obligation. Maybe an obligation is more of a duty. Maybe the answer would be to have more like French and say “have a duty.” I do like the idea that we keep something strong there because what we heard is that it works when everybody is co-operative and they want to compromise or help and be collegial. So I would worry about not having that language — because of who we are and the practice, but also the Rules of the Senate, we have a duty to make sure. And I don’t like the wording “need” in French. It is a responsibility and a right of the senators and not a need, in my view. I would keep something like “duty” more than “should.”
Senator Burey: Thank you, Senator Ringuette, for your suggestions.
I’m going to start with the third bullet from the bottom. I would refer back to our concepts and principles on page 9 where it talks about the principle of equality, substantive or otherwise. You can read it. I think the third bullet from the bottom speaks to that and operationalizes that concept, which is what I am thinking that your best practices are trying to do — operationalize what you outlined in your principles and concepts. I saw that as the operation, so I would leave it in. That’s the end of that one.
For the last recommendation, I would agree that words such as “should” or “work towards” would be better to state what we discussed.
Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you. With respect to Senator Petitclerc’s comment about potentially using the word “duty” as opposed to “obligations,” I would see those two words as synonyms and I’m not sure how that makes it any less onerous.
Senator Ringuette: This would be my final comment on the two elements I have highlighted.
In regard to the third bullet from the end, we only heard this from people outside the Senate. We had testimony from all the leaders in the Senate and none of them have highlighted this issue. As a matter of fact, not even the current non-affiliated senators have highlighted that issue of the flexibility of membership in a group. I reiterate that this has nothing to do with the best practice that we want to highly suggest.
With regard to the last bullet, and with all respect to Senator Petitclerc, I remain with the fact that the wording should be that the committee believes that groups and parties should accommodate non-affiliated senators because it is a tradition in the Senate — a highly valued tradition in the Senate — to be collegial with everyone.
Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, can I make a suggestion and we can proceed how we see fit? If there is a way in which to soften the third bullet from the bottom by simply saying, “The committee acknowledges that, in some other parliaments, recognized groups and parties may have flexible . . .” In other words, tie it to what we have heard without imposing it on what we do but putting it in the minds of potential best practices. Otherwise, we can just decide collectively whether we put it in or out. That’s just one opportunity to bridge.
Senator Saint-Germain: I thought that I would stop short of stating this but I think that I must state that this is a very sensitive paragraph. When we say that, “recognized groups and parties may have flexible levels of affiliation to admit senators,” this is the elephant in the room. It was not said, even by the witnesses, that some non-affiliated senators could not be admitted by any of the caucuses or groups. I think it is very sensitive. I would support deleting this paragraph.
The Chair: I think we’re going to have to put this to a vote, whether to include or delete this paragraph. Is that agreeable?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: To be clear, that’s the paragraph that begins, “This committee acknowledges”?
The Chair: Yes. Because we have had clear divisions. I think the only way of clearing that up for this report is to vote on it. Is that agreeable?
Clerk, would you do a roll call? .
Senator Batters: When you say, “in or out,” we are not voting yes or no?
The Chair: “Yes” would be to include it as it is drafted; “no” would be to exclude it.
Senator Batters: Okay.
Céline Ethier, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Harder?
Senator Harder: Abstain.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Yes.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Busson?
Senator Busson: Yes to exclude it. No, sorry.
The Chair: Yes to include.
Senator Busson: No to exclude.
Ms. Ethier: So no.
The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: No.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: No.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Surette?
Senator Surette: No.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator D. M. Wells?
Senator D. M. Wells: No.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: Yes.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: No
Ms. Ethier: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: No.
Ms. Ethier: Four yeas;eight nays; one abstention.
The Chair: We will exclude it from the next draft.
With respect to the last paragraph, is it agreeable to adopt the suggestion of Senator Ringuette that we delete “have where practicable an obligation to,” replace that with “should”? Agreed? Okay.
Colleagues, I think that’s as far as we can go with this today.
Senator Batters: I’m not going to go back. There is one part that I wanted to go back to, if I could, and that’s paragraph 35. That’s because in that one, it is talking about the predictable opportunities for non-affiliated senators to participate in committee business. It says the committee acknowledges that securing speaking time is a broader challenge shared across the Senate and among members of all recognized groups and parties.
I don’t think any Conservative senators said that. I certainly don’t agree with that. Instead of saying, “The committee acknowledges,” I would suggest to instead say, “Some committee members stated,” and then footnote it, as has been the case on many occasions throughout this report where witnesses said something. I do recall a few senators saying that. I particularly recall Senator Judy White said that at one point during the committee.
I don’t necessarily agree with that being an acknowledgement, that the committee acknowledges that it is a problem. I think that that would be a more effective way to do it. There isn’t any footnoting as to who said that. It is just a broad statement.
The Chair: Comments?
Could I ask the clerk whether you could come back next week with a reference to the evidence that we heard and the paragraph —
Senator Batters: That would normally be something that the library analysts would get for us.
The Chair: Yes, but for the next draft to —
Senator Batters: Yes. I recall Senator Judy White saying it. Perhaps, for the next draft, that could be included, instead of saying, “The committee acknowledges,” it could say, “Some committee members stated.” Then there could be a footnote with that in there. Yes, I don’t think it should say, “All recognized groups.”
The Chair: Is that agreeable? Okay.
With that, we will come back to the draft as amended next week and, hopefully, we can get this report adopted.
Senator Batters: The last page and a bit, where it lists the witnesses, in a number of these spots it lists so-and-so as an individual. I’m not sure that is needed. I understand that they are not speaking for their institution in a lot of respects. You could probably say that almost all of these are not speaking for the institution, other than maybe the House of Commons witnesses. I’m just not really sure why that’s needed in this list of witnesses. I know that a lot of times that’s how it is phrased on the Rules Committee agenda for that particular meeting, but I don’t generally see those kinds of references in a witness list.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: In response to this comment, the practice in the drafting of reports is to use the way the witnesses are presented in the official transcripts, and that’s the way they appeared in the official transcripts.
The Chair: That seems reasonable. We don’t have to edit.
Senator Batters: There was one other thing I recalled that is particular to our Conservative Senate caucus and that is when Senator McCallum testified, she was a non-affiliated senator at that point, but she, after that point — I believe in June 2025 — she joined the Senate Conservative caucus. I think that should be footnoted when she is referenced in here; she was a non‑affiliated senator at the time, but she is no longer a non‑affiliated senator. I think that would be helpful.
The Chair: I agree with that. Is there agreement? Okay.
Senator Batters: And when former senator James Cowan is referenced on the witness list, he has “K.C.” — King’s Counsel — noted there. Being as that is noted in that respect — I know I have a K.C. and I believe Senator Judy White has a K.C. — so I think if it is going to be appropriate for one, it should be appropriate for ours to be noted too.
Mr. Delisle: Yes, we can definitely go ahead with this.
Senator Yussuff: I hate to be prickly about these matters, but we are all here as senators. We could ask for whatever. I understand the point that’s being made, but wasn’t Senator Cowan here as a witness when he appeared? Of course, as a witness, whatever his title is, that’s what we would acknowledge.
The Chair: That was on the witness list at the time.
Senator Downe: We recognize Privy Councillors because it is a parliamentary form, but we don’t recognize other titles. We don’t have “Rear Admiral (ret’d)” after someone’s name, even if that was someone’s position in their former life before the Senate. The senators who received K.C. here received that in their previous life, not as senators.
I think we should stick with senators and P.C. where necessary.
Senator K. Wells: I agree. We don’t recognize people’s medical credentials as doctors, PhDs or things like that. We can go down the list of highly accomplished people with many letters after their names. Which ones get included and which ones don’t? P.C., obviously, is standard practice.
The Chair: The solution is that, for witnesses, it is as they were identified on the witness list. For senators, it is as they are identified as senators.
Senator Batters: Can you just remind me of something? I recall asking that Senator Cowan be a witness for this. Maybe I’m getting mixed up with the previous study we had where I sought to have him called as a witness and the committee didn’t agree with that. So then I recall one point where he had just happened to be here; he was sitting at an adjacent table. As part of the witness testimony that was happening, he offered comments because he was there and he has much expertise on those types of issues.
So I’m not positive that — was he actually a witness for this committee? I may be getting mixed up with the previous study that we had around the same time when I recall him sitting across from me, but he wasn’t necessarily a witness who was put on our agenda.
Mr. Delisle: That’s a good question. I can confirm that he testified. I have the transcripts here. When he came forward to the table, he said, “Thank you, chair, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.” So, yes, he did testify as a witness.
The Chair: Colleagues, is that agreeable, then, for nomenclature?
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I have one question. It’s in the introduction, under paragraph 3. We just have one sentence that we need the committee to complete. I’m pretty sure we know the answer, because we didn’t hear anything today to indicate otherwise, but it says, “The committee concludes that amendments to the Rules are or are not necessary”? I’m assuming —
The Chair: “Not.”
Ms. Virgint: I just wanted to make sure.
The Chair: Yes. Paragraph 12.
Senator Batters: Since we have these best practices, rather than making it look away from paragraph 3 that we don’t think any amendments are needed, we should then refer to the fact that we refer to the best practices noted near the end of this report or something like that. Otherwise, it looks like we have just completely disregarded everything right from the very start.
The Chair: Fair point.
Mr. Delisle: If I may, regarding paragraph 12—
The Chair: Paragraph 12, colleagues.
Mr. Delisle: It is just a small error that appeared when we referred to academic experts who came to testify. It should be singular, because there was one academic expert who had testified, and that was Professor Malloy. I would put it in the singular there.
The Chair: Okay. With that, we will have a draft for circulation before the next committee meeting and hopefully deal with it then and more formally adopt it.
What I would like to spend a bit of time on now is the future business of the committee. You will recall that, in our earlier discussion, we had reached a view that the next item of business should be the issue of membership on the Conflict of Interest Committee. You have received a background briefing note on that. I would like to confirm whether that’s something we should work toward as our next agenda item.
I will also ask whether or not this committee would like to hear from anybody. We had that brief discussion last time and felt this was not an item that outside experts could help us with. However, would this committee wish to, for example, hear from the former chair of the committee or, more formally, from the present chair of the committee with respect to the recommendation coming from Conflict of Interest Committee?
Senator Ringuette: I definitely think that we should invite the former chair because she was the chair at the time that recommendation was done. It could be a panel with the former and current chair.
I don’t think we need to have a slate of witnesses. We should be dealing with this quickly.
The Chair: Is there agreement that we invite Senator Seidman?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: Terrific.
Beyond that suggestion, we also had the issue of committee workload and committee assignments that had been reviewed by this committee earlier. Do we want to come back to that?
The other two issues that had been raised were e-petitions and dress code. I would want the views of the committee with respect to priorities after this study.
Senator D. M. Wells: Could you repeat the first one? I heard dress code but not the first one.
The Chair: E-petitions.
Senator D. M. Wells: Okay.
The Chair: We also had Senate public bills.
Senator Downe: I think we should also add to the list the presentation on digital scroll that, because of the amendment that is likely to pass, we are going to have. I think we need a tight timeline on that. The question is how quickly a presentation can be prepared and presented to the committee. That should be included on our list.
The Chair: Yes, I agree with that. I assume that would be consequential to us having this report adopted — the work that we are asking scroll and COPO to do is returned here, and it would have immediate priority in this committee.
Senator Downe: Yes — a time frame so we’re not looking at it this time next year.
The Chair: Yes, agreed.
Senator K. Wells: I would advocate for the e-petitions, which I introduced. I just want to thank the Library of Parliament for going back and forth, and producing what I think is a very excellent background report. If you haven’t had a chance to read it with the statistics, it is very interesting to compare the approaches to petitions in the House of Commons and the Senate. Certainly, the House of Commons has had an e-petition for over 10 years. We are a little, I believe, behind the times on that and certainly have had many requests from the public asking about our petition process, and it being much easier to refer them to a member of Parliament to get a petition up and going online than our current process, which is outdated and very cumbersome. That is why we should study it, so I know that when we are ready to go, we have got a good reporting suggestion. I’ll put that on the table with my pitch.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m inclined to include or not exclude anything. If it is an important and hot topic, that will be determined around the table. If it is not, that will also be determined around the table. I would be an advocate for inclusion of whatever is put in front of us.
Senator Ringuette: This committee has had many meetings in regards to the mandates of committees. To do justice to the members of this committee, we should conclude, we should bring it back with all the testimony and so forth and move forward so that whenever we have a prorogation or an election, that when we come back, the new mandate would be put in place, if not possible, depending on what we recommend. I believe the first item should be to conclude that.
I honestly believe that the dress code in regards to the Senate Chamber should be a mandate for the Speaker of the Senate I don’t think it is a mandate for the Senate Rules Committee.
I have no issues in regards to e-petitions. I can’t remember when the Senate had a real petition tabled. I do believe that after that, we need to have a good discussion, a good review of our handling in the Senate of public bills.
This is where I stand on the different issues. Ultimately, I believe that the next issue on our agenda should be the Conflict of Interest Committee.
Senator D. M. Wells: This is a comment on question of the dress code. I don’t think it is in the purview of the Speaker. The Speaker is merely first among equals. Any direction on these things would have to come from the chamber and perhaps via the committee, but not directly from the Speaker.
The Chair: Other comments? Colleagues, if I could suggest — obviously, the list is not short but it is not outrageously long either — that it might be best to conclude what the work of the committee has done on committees, then e‑petitions, then Senate public bills and then dress code.
An Hon. Senator: [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: We have agreed that would be the first. I’m just trying to plan ahead so that we can start thinking about how to proceed and form that debate. If that is agreeable as a list, we’ll use that as the guide to our future meetings.
Now, are there any other issues that the committee would like to raise at this meeting?
Hearing none, we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)