THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 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), consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to all senators as well as those across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Peter Harder, and I’m the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette from Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 Territory.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, I assume you are all comfortable with us staying in public, so I will, accordingly, move the agenda to continue in public.
You have received an issues and options paper prepared by the Library of Parliament analyst on our study of the membership of Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, or CONF. This paper was designed to be converted into a draft report once we have given the analysts and clerk our revisions and guidance, which is the purpose of today’s meeting. It contains background information on the provisions governing CONF and the principles outlined in the third report that recommended changes to the CONF membership. Some questions have been included to generate discussion among our members here to assist in the drafting of the report and the drafting of possible rules changes.
I suggest that we review the document, paragraph by paragraph, recognizing that the paragraphs from 27 are the ones that are particularly focusing on issues for consideration and discussion — hopefully, reaching some conclusions on. The introduction and the background information are, in a sense, light drafts of what a report could look like with respect to the issues and what we’ve heard.
Would there be any comments with respect to parts A and B, looking at that as a potential guide to the report itself?
Senator Downe: I will just highlight point 8 in part B. I mentioned at the last meeting that I’m not convinced that our standards are meeting the expectations of the public anymore. When the committee was set up, it was an initiative that was long overdue. Number 8 highlights that the conflict of interest may give general directives to the SEO concerning the interpretation, application and administration of the code. I’m not sure that would meet the bar that would be considered acceptable to Canadians today.
Having said that — I raised it the last meeting — I sense there is no appetite to undertake that at this point, but it could be further discussion down the road.
The Chair: I take that on. I also think it’s something that CONF should take on its own volition as it has an ongoing review of its mandate and roles. We do have the deputy chair here.
Hearing no further comment — and I do think that material is pretty straightforward and will be helpful to the consideration of the full report — can I suggest that we look at paragraph 27, particularly the questions for consideration? In the first part, there is the concept of CONF members being conduits from the committee to their caucuses and the selection of members at large by secret ballot. How should this be done and — the report to have our discussion around — should it be done in the same fashion as the process for the Speaker pro tempore, which is within five days of Parliament? In this case, it would be the session, because it is a sessional appointment. The Speaker consults with leaders and informs the Senate of the process.
Are there views?
I also welcome Senator Batters to the committee.
Senator Ringuette: I have to admit that, because of the strong need for consistency and continuity at this committee, I’m at the stage where I’m questioning if it should be a sessional thing or every Parliament or something like that. That would differ from all the other committees, but this is a different committee in its very important mandate.
Right now, I’m torn. Maybe one of the recommendations we should be making is that the membership at this committee should be for the duration of a Parliament, because of the very strong view that we’ve been hearing for many years now in regard to the committee to be continuous and stable for the benefit of the institution and all of us.
I’m just putting this out —
The Chair: It has been relatively stable, but I understand your point.
Senator Batters: I’m sorry. I was scaling snowbanks outside. Did you say we’re on paragraph 27 already?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Batters: Could I make a couple of comments about paragraphs 21 and 23?
The Chair: Sure, with the agreement of the committee, yes.
Senator Batters: Paragraph 21 talks about the principle of each recognized Senate group and party being allowed to select a member to that committee. I just want to point out, as I have in the past on this committee on other topics, that would mean it could be many more than the current number of recognized Senate groups and parties. All that would require is a group to have at least nine members or more, so there could potentially be 10 groups of senators that would be represented on this committee.
Then, in addition — I also have comments about this in addition to that — having an additional member being elected by secret ballot by all senators. Who would that person then be accountable to? One of the things that happens at the Ethics Committee is that because its proceedings are almost always entirely in camera and secret, not even to the point of having minutes that indicate who attended, we could potentially have — I would hope not, but I don’t want to see us set up a situation — a member who is elected by all senators but doesn’t really necessarily have accountability to one particular group. The senators who potentially elected that person wouldn’t even know if they attended that committee on a regular basis. There would be no way to find that out.
Those are a couple of problems that I see with that.
Also, with respect to paragraph 23, where it’s speaking about the potential of the Government Representative’s Office, as that situation is currently set up, having an opportunity to have a member of the group from that, as the previous situation for the government was a party caucus, so it was part of that. I personally think it is the choice of the GRO not to be in that sort of format. I’m not sure we should necessarily accommodate this as an extra group that would provide a member, especially in light of the fact that we could have many more groups than the current five that exist.
Then with paragraph 26, which is right before the one you’re discussing, there is Senator Tannas’s comment about the most important principles are that every group determines who they want to put on that committee. But, in keeping with that kind of comment, if senators switch groups, it would seem to be in keeping with that that they should be removed, because that group that determined they wanted that person on the committee no longer has any accountability to that particular group.
Then, with respect to paragraph 27, the part speaking about — I guess this was the part of the meeting where certain people were expressing the views that they were okay with the fact that a senator might switch groups and then they might still stay on CONF. Is that what that statement was designed to . . .
The Chair: I think it’s fair to say, senator, that the paragraphs you referenced before paragraph 27 were a summary of the witness statements, not necessarily the views of this committee. What we are now seeking to do is to determine what the views of this committee are. The issues are framed quite well from paragraph 27 on, the first of which is the selection process.
I think we will get to the issues you have raised and we will form a view on them, which will inform the committee report.
Senator Batters: It’s just that in those parts of the earlier paragraphs of the report — because we are already getting toward the end of the report; it is really just a short number of pages to the end of this. We did only have one witness. When we only have one witness, some of the evidence that comes out is some of the contrary views expressed by senators who are on this committee. I think both sides of some of those arguments should be reflected rather than just the one side of it.
The Chair: I think that will be reflected in the considerations. While we only heard from Senator Tannas, we also have the testimony of Senator Seidman. This issue has been before the committee for almost five years.
Senator Batters: It came from one other meeting that I was at, yes, but, again, there were views expressed other than from the people who testified before the committee. I want to make sure those viewpoints are expressed. otherwise, it’s going to seem like there were no contrary indications about them.
The Chair: I suspect some of that will be reflected in the commentary we get to on the questions as they get framed. We will have ample time to review a report that has not yet been written.
Senator Surette: Do you want to answer another question first?
The Chair: No, I was going to make a comment on Senator Ringuette’s comment.
Senator Surette: I was going back to your reference to paragraph 27 on page 5.
I like the paragraph — individual capacity and impartiality nonpartisanship. The comment you made after, though, was that the member was a conduit to the group or party. I’m just questioning that part of it. I don’t remember seeing it anywhere in here.
At the university level, good governance is that you get the groups to name individuals — students, professionals and so on — but after they are on a board such as this, they are there in their individual capacities so they represent the institution and not their party or group.
Added to that is that it is the responsibility of the chair to get a consistent message out. You would not let the students go to the student population or the professionals — so that you get a consistent message.
I’m just questioning what the conduit to the party is after they have been named to the committee?
The Chair: In practice, it’s more about — in the meetings of caucuses or groups — to bring to the attention of colleagues, perhaps, a report that’s been tabled or how the issues have been dealt with. It is not to advocate a particular position of a group or a member that might be a subject of proceedings.
Senator Surette: — a separate decision.
The Chair: Yes.
But the question that Senator Ringuette has raised is whether this should be sessional or for the Parliament. It would be completely different than others were we to say “Parliament.” The practice has been to renew appointments, except for those who are retiring, for the Parliament. Are we fine with the convention, or do we want to go as far as recommending a rules change? I think that is the issue for us.
Senator Busson: I was going to try and make a general comment again around paragraph 27, as well. I think my colleague Senator Surette said it well: It is so important at CONF that the people there, although they are appointed by a certain group, don’t represent that group in decision making or influence and that we actually, in CONF, strive to consider all of the Senate and reflect the whole Senate.
Having said that, the practice had been for the four senators present to choose the fifth. I think it would be much more inclusive and more transparent if we did go to a secret ballot of all senators. I suspect that senators interested in serving would put their names forward. I’m getting into the weeds, but I think people become aware of who is interested and people’s own views of how that might go.
I am just expressing my support for it being a selection of the Committee of the Whole or the whole Senate. Again, as Senator Surette said, the focus is always on acting on behalf of the Senate and not on behalf of the group.
The Chair: The language here reflects that.
Is there any enthusiasm for Senator Ringuette’s suggestions?
Senator D. M. Wells: With regard to having the term be a Parliament or a session, it is a session right now, and it’s aligned with all of our committees, and it works. Do we spend an extra day or two setting up a selection committee and organizing it that way? Sure, we do, but that is also the price of democracy.
If we went to a Parliament as the term, it would be hard to go back to a session. If we stay in session, we can always have it in effect in the operation to be the Parliament by just renewing it every time there is a prorogation, a writ or whatever. It is harder to put the toothpaste back in the tube if we went to a Parliament rather than staying with the session.
The Chair: I would agree in the sense that the convention is working, so let’s use the convention.
One point I will make is that this committee is not part of Selection Committee’s considerations. This committee’s membership is determined by a motion passed in the chamber by all leaders, making the individual appointments. It also does have intersessional authority.
Senator D. M. Wells: When you said “this committee,” I thought you meant “this” committee.
The Chair: No.
Senator Batters: Something that I absolutely recall saying at the last meeting when we discussed this and which does not seem to be anywhere in this whole briefing note was the point of view that members — certainly, I don’t know about other groups but from our group — it is valuable to have members who are there from your group or caucus because they can, then, relay information that is appropriate for them to relay to your group in your individual caucus or group meetings about things that are happening that senators need to know about. There is not really another opportunity to relay that information, and also the opportunity for senators from your group or caucus to be able to relay concerns that might exist about these types of very sensitive matters, and that is the appropriate place to have those kinds of confidential discussions, certainly in our group. Obviously, we’re subject to caucus confidentiality, and I’m sure other groups probably have some version of confidentiality.
Say there were a case where our caucus had a member who was a member of the Ethics Committee but then decided to switch groups or caucuses and go to a different group, I was bringing up the possibility that this would be a very detrimental situation. Then, we wouldn’t have any ability to find out this kind of information that’s going on in a committee whose nearly every single meeting is only in camera.
So, there is that.
I understand the point of view that’s been expressed that members of the Ethics Committee don’t speak only dealing with their group, but they do bring that very valuable perspective. Otherwise, if they didn’t bring that, we wouldn’t be organizing the entire CONF in this way; we would just be picking random members of the Senate without any regard to which group they are from. Obviously, that has long been a recognized benefit of having a member of your group — a very important part of that — and that’s why I express that point of view.
I don’t see that point of view noted in any way in any paragraph of this report. Again, I feel that is an important factor. I do see it says, “Some members of RPRD expressed agreement on this statement.” I think I expressed some disagreement with it because I think it was largely meant to okay the point of view that somebody who switches a group — that would be fine and they would stay on CONF, even after switching.
There is a different viewpoint on that and that is that, although the members of CONF might feel that they are not representing their group at CONF, they are, to a certain extent.
The Chair: I don’t disagree, which is why in paragraph 34, we will get to that point and this group will form a view that, I suspect, will align with your instincts, but I don’t want to prejudice things until we get to that discussion.
Senator Batters: Shouldn’t there be an evidentiary basis or statement before we get to questions? That’s all I’m asking. Some of the points of view expressed should be that there should be an evidentiary basis set forth and then get to the statements or questions of decision points later on in the report.
The Chair: Are we comfortable, then, in responding to the questions that it would be elected by majority vote for the session? Are senators of the view that the GRO should be eligible to serve on CONF? That is not to say that they would.
Senator Yussuff: I recognize that the composition of the GRO has grown. Certainly, this time around, they might be subjected to CONF’s decision if one of their members should be in conflict with the rules and proceedings. When you look at the composition of groups in the Senate, they are at the lower end of the threshold in regard to that composition, so they are unique in the context of small numbers getting a seat versus needing to have a higher threshold in order to get to that, based on the current composition.
I’m of mixed views about this. I understand they are part of the group and we should figure out a way, but, to a larger extent, all of us, when we signed up for this, recognized that there are some important principles of conduct and behaviour. As such, whether we have representation on CONF or not, that is my obligation as a senator in the chamber. I assume the GRO is no different than the rest of us.
The Chair: And they have chosen not to be.
Senator Yussuff: I’m not strongly in favour of it and I’m not sure I’m totally against it. I recognize there are these anomalies that need to be sorted out in fairness to how the other groups get representation currently.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m in agreement on the ambivalence that my colleague has. On one side, I think the GRO is specifically there to represent the executive, but I’m not sure how I can square that with pre-2015 when the government had its own caucus that was there, essentially, to represent the executive but not necessarily en masse. It was different, and I’m trying to come to terms with them being there to represent the executive, which is very specifically separate from a legislative branch in the Constitution, even though there is that crossover of the Government Leader in the Senator or the GRO now.
The question that Senator Yussuff correctly brought up is that they don’t have a caucus of nine, which is our limit on recognizing things. It’s one of the anomalies of the new system, which could go back to the old system where the Government Leader in the Senate represents a caucus of a plurality.
I’m not sure if I feel comfortable with the executive, which is a political organization, having a place in an important legislative branch committee, and if I don’t know my comfort level, then I don’t have a comfort level.
The Chair: You have some comfort in colleagues sharing your discomfort.
Senator Downe: I had the same concern but reached a different conclusion: I thought they should be included. The senators who make up the GRO are senators and therefore covered by the conflict of interest rules. They should have a voice regarding any decisions that may not only affect their members directly but other members in the chamber.
Senator Yussuff: I don’t see the committee as legislative in operation or even in construct. I see it more about the ethics of our behaviour and how that is reflected when the Ethics Officer rules on something — we have to determine how we are going to apply whatever discipline we want.
For all of us, while I was in a group that wanted to speak for me, I expect my behaviour will be judged based on my conduct. As such, I think the GRO, as much as they are important, the reality is that with their duties, they have a higher level, I would say, than the rest of us in that they are representing the government caucus, to a large extent. I think they are obligated to ensure that their conduct and behaviours are above any kind of scrutiny that will bring them into conflict with our Rules.
I hear Senator Wells, and I’m of a mixed mind. If you were to ask me, I’m not favourable for them to be here, but I’m not going to die on this hill either.
Senator Ringuette: I concur with Senator Downe. We’re even thinking of a non-affiliated senator running for the at-large position. That being said, Senator Surette put the nail on where I stand in regards to this; they’re responsible to provide discipline to all peers. Therefore, I honestly believe the GRO particularly — yes, they are part of a somewhat partisan structure currently. But right now, we have five senators in that group. For argument’s sake, I could argue that ISG, being 42 senators, should have three members representing them on that group. But that’s not how we want to structure and continue to structure this committee.
I would strongly argue that in order to be recognized as a partisan group, you need at least five members, and with a non‑partisan group it is nine. I believe that any group should have a representative, and not because they would be reporting to the group, per se. That’s at the very strict discretion of the members of the group to be respectful of their mandate. I would say, yes, the GRO should be allowed to have a member.
The Chair: Just to push on this, that they would be allowed to or they should? In other words, the existing practice is they have chosen not to.
Senator Yussuff: Just quickly, is there a sense that they want to? We may be having a moot point here, to be very frank about it.
The Chair: At this point, they don’t see that as —
Senator Yussuff: I think that is important. They accept the structure. They understand how the system works —
The Chair: I suspect we want to be permissive without requiring.
Senator Ringuette: I think that’s the direction we should go in.
Senator Busson: That is what I was going to suggest. Perhaps, rather than have them be a designated group within the CONF generally, that they be permitted to submit someone to the at-large position, and then if they choose to submit someone to that, then that sort of satisfies — not that they would get elected, but at least they have an opportunity to be represented as the non-affiliates would.
I’m not sure if that helps or changes any viewpoint. To me, it seems like it is making a non-partisan group a little more partisan. As much as I trust the people who are there, I don’t support it.
Senator D. M. Wells: I don’t think this has anything to do with the people who are there. They are our colleagues, and they are trustworthy and honourable colleagues.
But I’m not yet at the place where you are, chair, whether it is permissible or required. I’m still not there. They represent the executive. They represent the Prime Minister’s Office and cabinet, and I don’t think there is a place for them in that committee.
We’ve already seen some incursion on that from the sessional order that we passed at the beginning of the session, with a member of the GRO sitting on the steering committee of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources — someone who doesn’t sit on the committee, and now we have a member representing the executive branch on steering. I disagreed with it then, even though it was an agreement by leaders. I didn’t agree with it, and I voted against it.
I think this is a further push into that territory where the Senate, by its nature and rule, is independent of the executive. Any slipping in that takes away from our obligation to be independent of the executive, as we are independent from the judiciary.
The Chair: Would that logic then guide you to say should there be a Conservative leader in the House of Commons and a Conservative leader in the Senate?
Senator D. M. Wells: Back to my earlier comment, in my previous intervention, that’s where I have not come to ground. I am conflicted on that. Obviously, there is a different dynamic.
Now, here is a specific body that represents the government. That’s their name: the Government Representative. The name, if there is a Conservative government, is the Conservative caucus. It may be the government caucus or referred to, but not officially. It is the Conservative caucus, so —
The Chair: Government leader in the Senate.
Senator D. M. Wells: Exactly right, yes. But not the government caucus in the Senate.
My comment has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with the independence of the Senate, which is 105 of us.
Senator Batters: Yes, Senator D. M. Wells expressed what the difference is. What the Government’s Representative’s Office, or GRO, did when they decided to form that sort of a group is that it’s an executive function somewhat divorced from having — or separated at least, if not formal divorce — a party or group status as well. That’s the important part that needs to be represented as members of CONF because that’s the certain group.
Again, I reiterate my concern that we could have a situation, as the CONF report indicates, where they wanted to have a member from each recognized group, parliamentary group, and as Senator Ringuette said a little earlier, the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, has 42 members right now. There is always the possibility that that very large group could become a few different, much smaller groups and still meet the requirement for recognized parliamentary group.
So instead of five groups plus an extra member as elected by the senators, or something like that, whatever is decided here, then we could potentially have this CONF committee — which we have heard, including from Senator Seidman when she testified a few years ago about this issue. She said that it’s very much a benefit to have this committee be quite a small number of members for the very confidential work that they do but also in case they need to have frequent and emergency-type meetings.
It is one thing to set it by sessional order because then you can change it more easily, but if it is in the Rules, it will be difficult to change. You could have a situation where you have 10 people on that committee, which would not be workable.
Senator Surette: At the risk of showing my ignorance on some of this, it seems like we are complicating a lot of things here. In my head, we’re looking at finding five to seven independent senators to sit on the committee to rule on all the senators on a conflict of interest. So I have difficulties understanding how some of the senators would not be included in choosing or being permitted to sit on the committee.
I don’t understand the logic of how you would exclude them. I don’t see it as a legislative committee. I see it as a Conflict of Interest Committee. To me, it is different. All the senators have the same rights. It doesn’t matter what party or group we are in. Am I missing something?
The Chair: I would respond by saying that the election of a senator at large ensures that everybody has had at least one opportunity to determine a representative.
Senator Surette: Unless we exclude the GRO.
The Chair: No, we are not excluding them. They will participate in that vote. That doesn’t mean — that would be one of five votes, right? That was the concept here.
I am trying to reach a consensus here that we acknowledge that one per group or caucus — can we go as far as saying that we note that the GRO, which has recently been determined to be a group, has chosen not to have a representative on this committee and that the decision to have one at large will ensure that all senators, GRO or non-affiliated, are involved in the selection of at least one senator.
Then, we can keep our ambiguity.
Senator Yussuff: I have some quick points.
One, I think that it’s been raised that, based on recognized groups, at some point, it could be much larger or remain even smaller for that matter, whether we should put the numbers in a way that a maximum of — so at least we recognize the smaller they are, the easier to arrive at decisions. It makes it more conducive for building strong relationships. That’s been my experience.
The Chair: What about senates that have 12 groups of eight members?
Senator Yussuff: I don’t know. I have not been here long enough to know.
My second point is that Senator Wells raised an important point: The GRO is the executive branch. I know they have chosen not to be there right now, but we can’t negate the fact that they are there to represent the political office of the government. As such — and I am rethinking my position — I don’t think they should even be part of the consideration to be part of the group. They have a different role to play. I don’t know if the executive branch should be involved in deliberating on judgments regarding their colleagues. I understand they are individual senators, but they have chosen to be representatives of the government. They didn’t have to, but they have so chosen, and that should exclude them automatically, in my view. They ought to acknowledge who they are because we are confusing them for a group — other than the fact they represent the government in the institution.
The Chair: Just for the record, I would share that view.
Senator Yussuff: Yes, okay.
The Chair: We’re getting around that by the election of a senator at large.
Any further comments? Are we comfortable with the notion of caucuses or groups, excluding the GRO, and one at large?
Senator Batters: I have pretty clearly expressed I am personally not. It has the potential for way too many groups, especially if you are going to entrench it as a rule.
The Chair: Right. Although, we have rules and then sessional orders. The record will show that. I don’t think we need to go through it.
Shall we move, then, to the next issue? It says “flexible number of members,” but that’s what we just discussed. It would be reflective of the groups as they formed and would adjust up and down.
For paragraph 31, I suggest that, based upon the conversations we’ve had and the testimony we’ve heard, if a senator leaves a group and is a member of CONF, they leave CONF. The group will then determine who they would choose to be the successor. To me, that seems to be the logic that we’re using.
Senator Ringuette: Correct me if I’m wrong, but, in the Rules, there is already a rule saying that a leader or a facilitator can make a recommendation to Selection for the removal. And —
The Chair: I hear your thoughts on that, and I know where you’re going. CONF is not part of the Selection Committee process. It is elected by the chamber by name, so we need to have in the Rules that, should a person so elected by the chamber from a group leave that group, the group should elect another person to be nominated to be elected by the whole chamber.
Senator Ringuette: I believe we should do that.
The Chair: I think that’s the only way you can do it. Otherwise, you are in a situation where a person leaves a group and stays in CONF.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: That’s just my view, but I think that’s a consensus here.
Senator Ringuette: Chair, if I may, paragraph 28 is the issue of whether we should recommend a maximum number of members on this committee with regard to flexibility or should we say that, for the time being, that’s where we are? Rules can be amended in the future if the scenario changes.
The Chair: I would think so. You can use sessional orders, as well, if you don’t want to get to the rules. We’ve been under sessional orders for 10 years.
Senator Burey: I was going ask for clarification on the very point that Senator Ringuette spoke about, so it has been clarified.
Senator D. M. Wells: I am in agreement with you. The question of a senator remaining on CONF after that senator has left a caucus could be very awkward. People leave caucuses for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes, it is conduct unbecoming and they are removed, so it would be quite awkward to have a senator leave a committee — especially the committee under discussion — if that were the case.
Plus, there is the question of general representation, not specific representation, of an issue — general representation of a caucus.
As to the question of having a maximum number of senators on a committee, it was initially four, was it not? What is it now, four?
The Chair: It is five. It was six.
Senator D. M. Wells: Right. The reason for having it smaller, just like the Senate has on the Audit and Oversight Committee is so that it can meet at odd times and be nimble in its decision‑making. I think at one point last session, this committee had 18 who would show up. It was less nimble and less able to act quickly.
The reason for having a low-member CONF, a low-member Audit Committee and empowered steering committees on all committees, in particular for CIBA, is for decisions to be made quickly when necessary. Sometimes, it is necessary. Sometimes, it can take forever. Not this one, of course, chair.
We should be mindful of the reason we had a low membership number, rather than letting it get caught up in increasing because we have more people, especially if all members are entrusted by all senators to do the business of that committee.
The Chair: True. A couple of points on that, though. We are saying if other groups are formed, so they have to meet that standard. We haven’t reached it yet, but when this does come into effect, it would be at the next session. If it happened today, it would take effect only at the next session. There is a facing year that, should the unpredictable happen and we end up with eight more groups tomorrow, it would not automatically lead to eight more people. I suspect we would have some conversations on how to manage that. However, the principle here is that a group should have representation.
Senator D. M. Wells: My only comment was to be mindful of the reason we decided as a Senate to have a low-membership committee.
The Chair: Which is why it is one.
Senator K. Wells: I’m not sure exactly where this might go, but perhaps this would be principle one or an observation as it relates to the composition of the committee. I didn’t see this in this report, but we discussed in a previous meeting the notion that the composition of the committee should be guided by principles of equity, gender and regional diversity when selecting the membership in order to better understand and manage the variety of issues under deliberation.
I’m not sure if that could fit under principle one or if it is best as an observation. Are we having observations?
The Chair: I have a bit of a problem with that. I’m fine with that as an objective, but you are circumscribing the considerations that a group might undertake because they don’t know what other groups are doing. If one group announced who they were selecting first, why is that then obliging another group to have the balance that you seek?
I do think that the election at large should be a point of consideration on that point, should we get to a situation where we are concerned about it. It sounds like a very important objective, but how you operationalize it is not clear to me on this committee or any other committee.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Since the start of the discussion, I’ve had an option in mind. I’m submitting it as a question for a new senator.
For the Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, have we considered abandoning groups, meaning having other criteria to ensure that we keep the seven people and the objectives of equality? Since we’re talking about conflicts of interest, we would like to become even more independent than we are now. Has this prospect been considered?
[English]
The Chair: I can only speak from experience. I think caucuses and groups uniquely guard their decision-making process. They decide through a ballot question whom they would nominate for the Conflict of Interest Committee. I think that’s the appropriate process. I don’t know how you could otherwise do it.
Senator Yussuff: I like what Senator Wells said in regard to representation, but in the context of members carrying out their duty, we should all be aware that the Senate is a composition of many different individuals, backgrounds, genders and, in the context of people rendering decisions, that always has to be. However, ethical behaviour is a fundamental question about where the breach occurred and how you render a decision. I don’t care about your gender or ethnicity or what your sexual orientation might be. It is about the person’s breach of the basic principles of how we conduct ourselves in this place.
I understand that, but I subscribe to the point you made, chair. It is a challenge as to how you tell a group how we get to a place that we reflect the diversity of the institution that we supposedly represent. I have seen the representation on CONF evolve over a period of time. Like everything else, we need to be conscious of the efforts we put into the selection of people. More importantly, individuals have to serve if they are selected. Simply being asked is one thing, but do you say, “Sorry, that’s not where I want to spend my time” or, “Do I feel qualified to provide my leadership in that area?”
It is a balancing act. All leaders are aware that the composition of the group to a large extent requires them to think about how they make selections and try to ask individuals to serve there. In our group, we go through that on a regular basis when we have to select people. We all voice our opinions, but the outcome has been fairly reflective of what we are thinking but equally whom we select to represent us.
Senator K. Wells: I do feel strongly about this point. Although we are not binding the groups, we are making a statement about the considerations. Consider it a reminder to the groups about these important principles. This is core to ethics and ethical decision making. Courts look at structural discrimination or systemic discrimination in any kind of decision they may be making and take that into account as to what the remedy may be through the court process.
It is important for us to highlight these principles of equity, gender and regional diversity. Our group — and I hope other groups — considers these factors in decision making. We are making it transparent and noting that we discussed this issue as a committee and have deemed it worthy of an observation, perhaps, if it doesn’t fit under a principle.
The Chair: Is there comfort with an observation on this point? Are we comfortable with that? Should a member leave to another group, the group from which they left would have an early opportunity to replace them through the process of election and then the motion being passed in the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: That’s filling a vacancy. If the group meets the minimum requirements to qualify as a recognized group or party, should the group remain on CONF? My view on that is until the end of session; we would then review it. The idea is to try to provide some level of stability and predictability.
An Hon. Senator: I agree.
The Chair: If a new group is recognized during the session, when should it be determined to be able to have a member on CONF? At the next session would be the logic, right?
Senator Busson: That ensures, Mr. Chair, that everyone has a representative at each consistent time in the session.
Senator Batters: You missed a point. The first question for consideration under (b) was: Should the rule, which sets CONF’s membership at five senators, be amended and — as I’ve been trying to alert people to — should the Rules provide for a minimum or maximum number of members? You skipped over that.
The Chair: I thought the view of the committee was that every group should have a member. That would lead to a definite minimum.
Senator Batters: Right, but you didn’t discuss the number of maximum. I’ve been raising concerns about that. My concern was expressed, but everyone else is totally fine with as many as needed? As many groups?
The Chair: For that session, yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: I don’t think we have come to ground — or maybe I missed it if we did — on the GRO being a group, or it is a recognized caucus of nine?
The Chair: I thought the consensus was that they would not be represented on CONF.
Senator D. M. Wells: Okay. Then I’m in agreement with that.
The other thing I wanted to mention, when we discussed a moment ago or you brought up the question of if a caucus goes below nine, does that member stay on the committee, I’m in agreement with that member staying on the committee, but there should be some comment or consideration should that member die, retire or resign. Then it would be replaced by whom, or by what.
The Chair: Or not be replaced at all.
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes. Does the caucus in question get to replace that, even though they might only have eight members? According to our discussions, the answer is no. But, of course, that person who left by death or retirement would obviously not be on the committee anymore. How should we address that? Should there be a note or a comment about that?
The Chair: Would you not agree that should the group fall below, the member could stay on the committee until the end of the session or when they left — I don’t want to predict the demise. In other words, they would continue until they no longer served.
Senator D. M. Wells: I always have to pause when someone asks me the question that begins with “would you not agree,” because I never know if my answer is “yes” or “no.” I would agree that if that’s the case, then the committee would be reduced by one.
The Chair: We’re trying to ensure that the expertise that has been there for a period of time continues to provide guidance on the committee, even though they are down. We are not introducing a new member just because they once had a size sufficient for membership.
Senator D. M. Wells: Agreed.
The Chair: Is everybody comfortable with that?
Senator Busson: In the not-too-distant past, we’ve had an Ethics Committee with six and five, and we operate with varying quorums. If we’re going down the “what if” trail and during a session there ended up being eight or nine different groups to be considered at the next session, perhaps it might be wise to say that we recommend there be no more than six people on Ethics ever. If we’re getting into the weeds — I don’t know that we need to — at the next session, the two smallest groups would be encouraged or advised to pick a member amongst themselves and keep it at six or five. The maximum should be whatever we think the maximum should be, but if we have a situation where we have eight or nine groups — divided by nine, I don’t know what that works out to — the two smallest groups decide on a representative with their leadership. I don’t know if that’s too much in the trenches, but it may address some of the concerns about having eight or nine. I think the experience is that’s too many.
The Chair: I’m a little concerned that we’re getting into hypotheticals that reduce the consensus that people can agree on. In the scenario that you’re describing, because we’re doing it for a session, we have time to address that with a sessional remedy.
Senator Busson: I’m just trying to fix things in the trenches; that used to be my job. I will concur with the fact that it would be up to the next session to solve that problem.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: Obviously, we’re trying to contemplate all kinds of realities and changes that could happen.
The Ethics Committee could ask this committee, if it chose to, here’s the reality of what is happening in the Senate. Could you guys provide some guidance on how we might address that? You could always have a paragraph to give them leverage. To me, it’s about the continuity of representation, but in moments when you can’t figure it out, ask the people who have been studying the Rules to come back and give you some guidance.
The Chair: I suspect it wouldn’t be the only committee with that problem. The steering committees of all committees would be very large.
Senator Batters: With respect to the possible option of having the two smallest groups have to play some sort of “Hunger Games” for that one spot on the Ethics Committee, that would potentially put the opposition Conservatives, who are the only partisan group in the Senate, as one of the groups that would not be represented on that Ethics Committee. I don’t think that would be a good situation for many different reasons, for opposition, and also because it is the one overtly partisan group, so there could be some nuances at the Ethics Committee that deal with that very issue. It is a valuable perspective to have someone from that group always on that. Although I’m obviously concerned about the number of groups ballooning, that is obviously a very important consideration.
The Chair: That’s the reason why I think it does need to be addressed.
In terms of the process for filling a vacancy, I think we have agreed that is the usual process. Change in affiliation, we’ve done that.
Should there be specific times, as there is for the Speaker pro tempore, so many days into a session when it has to be done? We have normally done the election of CONF very quickly, probably not as quickly as the Speaker pro tempore. We either do it the way we have been doing it or we do it in alignment with the timetable for the vote of the Speaker pro tempore.
Senator Batters: When I read this part about needing to do it in a very specified way, I thought that was too prescriptive. It is already known to be a big priority by everyone in the Senate, so I don’t think it’s necessary to have some sort of a timeline within a certain number of sitting days. I think it’s already considered to be a very important topic.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Ringuette: I would like to make a suggestion. I think that we are not providing a timeline for the different groups to elect their members, which maybe we should be doing in regard to the continuity of the committee. I believe that the vote to select the member at large should occur once every committee has elected their members so we know who’s on it. It could be five days after the different groups have been elected and made public —
The Chair: And the Senate has appointed them.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, exactly. Senators need to know the composition. It goes back to Senator D. M. Wells’ issue with regard to making sure that there is a better balance before we do the election at large. And I think that for five days, once the groups have elected their member, that could occur.
The Chair: I agree. I think that makes sense.
Senator D. M. Wells: Not necessarily five days. The election could be on December 15. And to the principal point, absolutely, but I think not binding it to a number of days and just saying at the earliest convenience after the full selection committee has rendered its decision.
The Chair: It’s not a selection committee, though.
Senator D. M. Wells: Whatever it is, colleagues. But leave it at the earliest convenience because the earliest convenience might be three days or three weeks.
The Chair: The previous Ethics Committee has intersessional authority until the end of the session so you don’t have to worry about continuity. Good point. Agreed?
Now, what else am I missing here? We had this discussion with respect to whether we should preclude in the Rules the selection of groups and caucuses of individuals who sit on CIBA from holding office in CONF. The existing practice is that we do not have any prohibitions. In the testimony we heard, that has worked reasonably well, particularly in allowing smaller groups to have appropriate appointments for their purposes.
But there have been some views expressed that there should be a wall between CONF and CIBA. Is there a view here?
Senator Batters: I’m one of the ones who did express concerns about this, though I understand some of the reasoning, especially for smaller groups. At the same time, I was the one who questioned Senator Tannas about the possibility of many overlapping types of conflicts that could result from somebody serving in a leadership role on CIBA, including on CIBA steering, and the Ethics Committee all at the same time. Having all of those different types of confidences brought to their attention, and having to keep separate, in their own minds, what things they know from this and what things they know from that, and that could even impact what they are discussing in those different meetings.
They may just, understandably, raise something spontaneously that then they realize later, “My goodness, that was something I knew because of this.” That sort of thing could happen. People are human; you are not actually a computer able to keep everything absolutely separate.
With respect to paragraph 44, where it talks about the opposite view that was expressed by the previous Ethics Committee, with Senator Joyal and Senator Andreychuk, they had a red line that they believed no member of the Ethics Committee should serve on CIBA as a regular member.
I advocated for us receiving some evidence about why they felt so strongly about that, and the committee decided that they didn’t want to hear any of that type of evidence, so we don’t really know a lot about that point of view.
Another issue that I had, which I expressed earlier, was when Senator Tannas was saying — as expressed in paragraph 47, it’s summarized there — that groups and parties should use their best judgment in deciding which member to best serve on CONF, and that might dictate to these people who have overlapping roles. However, something else that needs to be considered there is those positions could shift. Maybe at the time the person was elected to be an Ethics Committee representative, that person might not have been on CIBA, and they took on that CIBA role later, or that person may not have been in a leadership role and they took that on later.
Those positions can shift, and the members of the group at one point got the ability to vote on which of their members should serve on the Ethics Committee. Or now that we’re going to have potentially the majority of the Senate vote, that vote could have happened long before somebody was put on one of these other roles.
The Chair: Other views?
Senator D. M. Wells: Colleagues, for background on the Audit and Oversight Committee, which I sit on and have sat on, the committee has access to every document available, even though they may not be widely available. We can have the minutes from a steering committee of CIBA in the course of our work.
When I sat on the steering committee of CIBA a number of years back, we had access to every document that was available. I assume there aren’t any restrictions on the members of Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee; I assume there would be that same availability of documentation, which would also cross over into availability of resident knowledge if you happen to sit on CIBA or steering, or steering of the Audit Committee.
So I would not have any issue with the crossover of members of those committees. Information should be widely available to each of those three committees in the course of their work. I wouldn’t have any issues with it.
It also goes toward some caucuses having nine members and they would be stretched to fill out the dance card for all their committees, possibly including that one. I don’t think having restrictions is necessary.
Senator Ringuette: I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m agreeing with Senator Batters. Here is my reasoning.
CIBA is an administrative group that does the administrative rules and all that. In regards to the Conflict of Interest Committee, which is a disciplinary committee — CIBA has no disciplinary authority, except the money. It is not the case for CONF. It could very well occur, and we’ve seen situations in 2015 where it was a case of conflict. So I would say that the membership of these two bodies should be different because of the disciplinary job of CONF.
The Chair: Can I ask a question of you?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: Would a leadership position in a group be even a stronger case? In other words, if you were a whip or whatever leadership view, there might be a perceived conflict of interest in dealing in CONF with a potential case of somebody in your caucus. That is even more uncomfortable than CIBA.
Senator Ringuette: I would tend to agree with you. And maybe it’s because of some of us being present in the 2015-16 audit situation where I would have some concerns.
I think that the membership of CONF has to come with an objective view, whereas if an issue from CIBA is referred to CONF, the objectiveness might not be there.
I want to voice my concern on this issue because of past experience in the Senate. And I don’t know, Senator Downe, if you understand what I’m saying in my concern with regard to what happens at CIBA and them not having any authority, per se, to discipline, and the authority that CONF has.
Maybe I’m way off base. I’m saying this because of the experience this institution has had to deal with in those years.
Senator Yussuff: I defer to my colleague, based on experience, but Senator Tannas was a leader of his group and he served on CONF in his capacity.
Leaders have broad knowledge of so many things that people share with them in confidence that quite often they have to balance that against all the other things they are responsible for.
And it would seem to me, from a distance, not only on the internal workings of CONF, that Senator Tannas was an able and very thoughtful leader in regard to his responsibility, and nobody has ever accused him of conflict in the context of carrying out his duties.
I do recognize the point that Senator Batters is raising about CIBA, but you can say that in a broad scheme about knowledge that people may have in judging their colleagues.
I don’t know all of the history of this place, and maybe I don’t want to know, but my only point is that I have total confidence in my colleagues who are sitting on CONF. I think when they agree to take on that responsibility they are fully aware of the impartiality of the responsibility and how they carry that out, and the care in doing so to not have anyone questioning their decision, but equally their judgment in doing that.
I understand the CIBA thing, but Senator Batters makes a good point. In smaller groups, where they are challenged to find a representative, it’s going to be a difficult task if they have someone serving in one place. And then how do we find someone to do this other duty?
I think we could put a footnote, if people are aware that there is going to be a conflict they feel would put them in jeopardy of carrying out their duties, they can recuse themselves in a way that shows impartiality but also good judgment on their part.
And we all feel that way sometimes. Sometimes I’m asked to do something and I think, You know what? I’m not sure that’s a good decision. I think I may decline. I know I could do a good job, but given the other things I’m involved in I don’t want to be a part of that at this particular point.
I think it requires an individual to exercise quick judgment and to be above board when they’re making those decisions, if they’re asked to serve in that capacity.
Senator Burey: This is a very naughty, wicked thing to try and figure out, and I don’t have a way of going because all the discussion has really been rich.
In my mind I was thinking back to Senator D. M. Wells and his observation of a principled observation — I’ll put it like that — in terms of the concentration of power, and I’m trying to be as inclusive and have diverse perspectives in our governance as a structural thing that you talked about. And maybe it will just be an observation about the balance of responsibilities, but I do think it’s very important. Because as a new — I’m not a new senator anymore; three years, I can get rid of that line.
You want to be involved, and I think the opportunity is to have people who have had outside experience in, perhaps, ethics to get people involved in the various committees. I don’t know what I just said, but I think my colleagues got the gist of it.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to follow up on the two previous comments. In the case involving currently seven people, according to the case analyzed, if some people want to recuse themselves to avoid a conflict and if we don’t adhere to the quorum of three people, what will happen? The small group means that we were exploring hypotheses, but the fact that three people —
[English]
The Chair: That has never been an issue in CONF, since the beginning.
Senator Youance: Okay.
Senator D. M. Wells: Just for background, there’s only one instance where there’s a prohibition on sitting on another committee in the Senate, and that’s the Audit and Oversight Committee, a member cannot sit on CIBA. And the reason for that is operational — and we came up with that when we were developing the terms of reference for Audit and Oversight back in 2017 or 2018. It’s not ethical or moral, or anything like that, it’s purely operational in that a committee member on CIBA — who develops and approves the budget — should not render judgment on how that budget is spent. They have already approved it so they agree with it, and to render judgment on how their previous decision was made and the effects of that.
There’s a specific divide. So I, as a member of Audit and Oversight, can’t sit — even as a sub — for a colleague on CIBA, but that’s operational.
So in the discussion that we’re having, unless it was some operational consideration, I really don’t think there should be a restriction.
And if there was something grievous where a member of CONF was sitting and about to render judgment on something that was ethically questionable, and it may not be negatively ethically questionable — maybe my sister is on CONF rendering a judgment on me, of course we know the outcome of that. But in a grievous situation I think the Senate would deal with it, regardless.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to raise something. Not too many of the senators currently on this committee have had the chance, so far, to serve on CIBA or to serve on CIBA steering. I just wanted to outline a few of the things that can happen when you’re on CIBA steering, as I have been, Senator D. M. Wells has been, Senator Downe has been, possibly others on this committee, not sure if Senator Ringuette has been there.
But of course all of the meetings of CIBA steering are in camera. There can be extremely confidential things that are discussed. There can be the matter of giving instructions to the Senate about lawsuits, significant human resource issues, and also somebody who’s on CIBA — whether or not they’re on CIBA steering — could also be a member of CIBA’s Human Resource Subcommittee, which have also dealt with some extremely confidential matters, including in very recent years where they had to deal with some controversial and difficult matters that had to stay entirely confidential. As well, the very innermost workings are where senators sometimes come, such as to CIBA steering or to the CIBA committee in camera, to deal with some very difficult matters that must remain absolutely confidential.
It is the kind of thing that causes me to raise this as an area where I would have benefitted from the wisdom of Senator Andreychuk and Senator Joyal. At the time they wrote that recommendation to say that members of CIBA should not be members of the Ethics Committee, they had both been in the Senate for a very long time, with a lot of wisdom and good judgment. They had serious concerns about it. It would have been good to understand what that could have been.
I’ve never been on the Ethics Committee, but I have been on CIBA steering. I received that kind of confidential information, so I can understand the types of overlapping confidences that you receive.
As Senator Harder also said, yes, if you are in certain leadership roles, like a whip or things like that, you also potentially get to know very confidential information about senators in your group.
As I said before, you’re not a robot. It often would be extremely difficult, no matter your good intentions or good character. There could be some very difficult circumstances that could result and some things that we don’t intend to happen, but that’s why we set rules forth; it is to provide for situations so we don’t have those difficult situations as much as possible.
The Chair: I think the issues are very much before us. I need to determine whether there is a conclusion that this group would wish to see reflected in its report. It seems to me there are three options. One is to have the prohibition of CIBA and leadership roles when considering members for CONF. Second is to be silent on it, and let that be determined by the groups in their decisions. Third would be to have an observation that concerns have been raised with respect to serving on CONF while being on CIBA and/or holding leadership positions in groups, and this issue should be discussed in the context of groups deciding. Those are the three options.
Is there a consensus view here? I know there are differing views. Where do we want to land? I open it up for comments.
Senator Ringuette: In the spirit of moving forward and having a consensus, I agree with your third option, which is to make a recommendation and leave it to the different groups and to the individuals in those groups to recognize that they might be putting themselves in a situation by being a member of these two committees. I would agree with your third option.
Senator White: I would agree, as well, with the observation. I like the idea of the observation. In that way, the groups themselves see it flagged, and they can determine for themselves what they put forward.
Senator D. M. Wells: So, equally, when you say, “Concerns have been raised,” there is also, “No concerns have been raised,” which is as valid a point as, “Concerns have been raised.” I think the most you can say —
The Chair: How about “The issue has been raised.” How is that?
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes, the issue has been raised because “issue” is not necessarily a “concern,” and that goes directly to my point.
That said, I also think we should be silent on it because the groups, which is your option two, will discuss, given all these other things. Those considerations will be made, regardless, by the groups should we remain silent on it.
The Chair: I’m not sure, actually. The advantage of an observation is that it can be a tool to ensure the question is asked, without getting into the pros and cons of particular candidates.
Senator D. M. Wells: I agree as long as it is not presaged with, “There have been concerns.”
The Chair: No, “The issue has been raised.” I get your point.
Anyone else? Are we okay then on that language?
That takes us to the next phase, which would be to ask our analysts to draft a report for our consideration at the next meeting. Happily, there is a break next week, so that gives them a bit of time to do that. That will allow us, again, to look at it and see if, on balance, it reflects the views we wish to put forward, if that’s agreeable.
This gives us a bit of time, but probably not much, to talk about our next area of business. You will recall that we agreed to resume the committee study. The Library of Parliament prepared a briefing note that provides an overview. That was distributed at the end of January.
I would like a bit of discussion on how this committee sees proceeding with that study. Are there witnesses you would wish to see, et cetera? I want to acknowledge that we have an inventory of other subjects. We have the e-petitions issue that Senator Wells has brought forward. We have the Senate public bills issue that has been raised somewhat in the context of committee mandates, actually, but do we want to begin a paper on that? And the issue of dress code has been raised by Senator Downe.
On that, I have a bit of information. The dress code falls under the Speaker, responsibilities for decorum, and that includes in the House of Commons where the issue has been raised. I think it is an enforcement issue, not a code issue.
In the Senate of the United States, a particular senator from Pennsylvania walked in with a hoodie and shorts. Within a few days, there was a dress code adopted by the Senate that did not include hoodies and shorts.
We certainly could do a paper and have a conversation, but I want everybody to know what our mandate and rules are with respect to this.
Senator Yussuff: The original dress code for senators was a toga. If we are going to talk about it, we should go back. I want to make sure we are consistent with history here. I understand it may evolve, but the toga is actually not a bad outfit.
The Chair: I will note that.
Senator Downe: My concern, originally, was that the House of Commons has changed some of their dress code. Anybody watching will see many people without ties on, for example, unless they are speaking. That appears to be the new acceptable rule. If you’re speaking on any topic, a tie is required. Otherwise, there is no requirement.
Some of us have noted that, in the warmer weather, it’s not quite as cool as it could be in the chamber. The minority members of the Senate, that being the men, are forced to wear ties. I’m sure the majority would not want to punish us on an ongoing basis, so I just raise that for consideration for the sensitivity of the minority members.
The Chair: I want to read from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, paragraph 13.19:
The Standing Orders do not prescribe a dress code for members participating in debate. However, Speakers have repeatedly ruled that male members must wear contemporary business attire, meaning a jacket and a tie. To vote, however, only a jacket is required. This practice also applies to members participating remotely, both for participating in debate and for voting. Lastly, members must remove their hats if they wish to speak.
Nevertheless, the Chair does occasionally grant exceptions. The Chair has stated that the wearing of Indigenous attire is permitted during proceedings. Bow ties and clerical collars are also permitted as well as the uniforms of the Canadian Armed Forces for serving members and kilts on certain occasions (for example, Robert Burns Day). However, ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate. Lastly, pursuant to Standing Order 1.1, the Chair may relax the dress standards for members who are ill or injured or who have a disability.
That’s the rule as it exists now.
Senator White: I thought there was an amendment to that, because one of the members of Parliament — a Mi’kmaq MP from Nova Scotia, actually — had made a motion to have medallions. He wears a medallion as opposed to a necktie. I think there is an amendment to that somewhere, just for your information.
Senator Yussuff: I’m speaking for a colleague of mine, who, as you know, is struggling with some health issues, and I think where the Speaker did grant permission speaks to flexibility. To a large extent, I don’t mind a dress code. If I don’t have to wear a tie, I won’t, but I do believe there is a degree of decorum that we have to engage in. After all, we are a place of trying to instill some appreciation for what we do.
I notice it is very prescriptive in regards to men’s attire. What I note is missing from what you read is that it is not an equal reflection around my colleagues who are my sisters in the chamber. Why is that a blank in regard to what you just read, because I don’t see consistency in how that is applied?
I am just asking the question, chair, just for clarity.
The Chair: I have no clarity to offer.
Senator Batters: I am guessing that dress code was probably put into place many decades ago when there weren’t any women in the House of Commons.
Also, while the House of Commons’ rule or standing order might be instructive to us in the other chamber, in the Senate, it is not determinative of the Senate, and we have our own rules and procedures. Of course, the Speaker also has a bit of a different role in the Senate, where the Speaker is one among equals and is not the setter of all the rules with no method of appeal. There is, actually, a method of appeal specifically set out for the Senate.
The Chair: In our own Rules, Senate Procedure in Practice, Chapter 5, Rules of Debate, “attire” is referenced on page 84:
Although there are no fixed rules for appropriate dress in the chamber, senators wear contemporary business dress. Senators are expected to wear attire in keeping with the decorum and dignity of a house of Parliament. Male senators normally wear jacket, shirt and tie, while female senators typically wear suits or other business attire. The Speaker and Speaker pro tempore, as well as the table officers, wear distinctive back robes and traditional law court clothing.
That’s the Senate procedure as of now that guides the Speaker, obviously.
Senator Wells from both Newfoundland and Labrador and Alberta would like to speak.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks.
Senator K. Wells: But Alberta has the larger population.
Senator D. M. Wells: It has the larger population of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as well.
I have just a couple of comments on it, and we will get to it if the committee chooses to study it. I remember Senator Tkachuk came in on a flight from Toronto, Saskatchewan or wherever it was, and his priority was getting to the Senate on time. The flight was late, and he wanted to get to the Senate — whether there was a vote or a debate or to listen. From the flight to the taxi to work, he didn’t have a tie, but he had his jacket.
I guess normally he would go to his hotel or his office and put on a tie, but he wanted to get to there quick, and that was his priority out of respect for the institution. It was commented upon in the media that Senator Tkachuk was in the chamber without a tie. Of course, it wasn’t commented that he prioritized being in chamber over the question of attire.
I’ve been here for over 13 years, and I’ve worn a suit every day, except one day I wore khakis and a blazer and felt uncomfortable. Now, that said, I know I can wear the same black suit, the same white shirt and maybe switch out ties, and no one would say a word.
My final comment on it is that I believe flexibility is warranted, especially for medical and, obviously, our own cultural diversity within the Senate, but — horror of horrors — there was one senator who came in with a Saskatchewan Roughriders jersey on —
An Hon. Senator: That’s specifically allowed.
Senator D. M. Wells: — and even though it was, of course, against the accepted dress code, because of the nature of the moment, it was deemed acceptable.
Senator Batters: That senator went and changed immediately thereafter.
Senator K. Wells: That is hard to follow up on.
If we do choose to study this, I think it is important to reflect on modern times and Canadian values. A lot of the language that was shared is very gendered as well. I can think of a situation of someone who might identify as non-binary, “Where do I fit, and how do I dress?” What is appropriate as well, so we would want to revisit some of the language and expectation and focus on the professionalism and, perhaps, the image and the reputation of the Senate rather than the presumed gender of the person.
Senator Yussuff: I have a quick point. Based on what you have read, it is the Speakers who essentially guide us in this direction.
I know we can study whatever we choose to, but the reality is that if it is in the Speaker’s domain, are we treading on her territory — the current Speaker, anyway — in regard to offering advice that may not be —
The Chair: If we decide that we want to pursue this, I would have a word with the Speaker to determine whether or not there would be a desire to hear the views of the committee.
Senator Yussuff: That’s my point. I don’t want us to go down the road without checking with the Speaker’s office.
The Chair: Yes, because these are not rules.
Thank you for this. With respect to engaging on the next study on committees, please have a look at the report that was circulated at the end of January and come to the next meeting with a sense of what would be the work plan, or are we beating a dead horse — if I could put it that way — in terms of finding a path forward that can advance the issue that the committee has been wrestling with for some time? I think that’s, essentially, the issue we need to deal with.
If there is no other business, we will adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)