THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 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) for consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I want to welcome all senators, as well as those who may be viewing us on sencanada.ca. My name is Peter Harder, and I’m a senator from Ontario and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, or RPRD.
Before I ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, I want to remind all senators to read the instructions with respect to our microphone management so that we can ensure the safety and health of our translators.
I urge senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, Charlottetown.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette from Nova Scotia.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I presume, senators, that you’re all comfortable with us continuing in public? I see agreement to that effect, and we will begin our agenda.
Colleagues, our first item is the draft report on our study on membership of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, or CONF. A table of draft amendments to the Rules and an excerpt from the Selection Committee’s first report of this session of Parliament were distributed on March 9.
My suggestion is that we review the report paragraph by paragraph. In the context of that review, look at the longer sheet with the specific wording on the rule changes as we get to those items so that, in a sense, we are dealing with the framework of the policy issue and the precise wording contemporaneously.
With that, can I suggest we then follow paragraph by paragraph of the report? If there are comments — our staff has not received any comments from senators — that gives us the opportunity, as we review now, to go through that. Of course, page 7 will incorporate the list of recommendations retroactively, so we don’t need to review that. We could start with “Introduction” on page 8.
Senator Ringuette: When you say on page 7 there will be a list of recommendations, will that include the proposed rule changes?
The Chair: Yes. There will be another draft that will be consequent to this meeting that will incorporate the specific rule changes to which we agree.
Senator Ringuette: Okay.
The Chair: It was felt it was better to provide the options on a spreadsheet of technical rule changes, so we will choose the preferred rule change and then have that incorporated as we go through.
Senator Batters: I just have a few comments. First of all, on the first several pages, yet again, we have a report where, because of the lengthy way that we’ve chosen — or that the format is to list all of the different senators and all of that sort of thing — we then are, as you said, starting with “Introduction” on page 8 of a report that is only 20 pages long. Again, I suggest that, perhaps with respect to the list of senators, it could be shrunken down so it doesn’t take as many pages as it does.
Also, on page 4, it lists the ex officio members of the committee. Again, we’ve only had two meetings on this, one five years ago and one this year, so I don’t think we need that section, as the only people on that list who took part in this very short study are already noted elsewhere on this page.
Then, again, as we have the order of reference on page 6, it’s just a very small part of the page, like a fifth of the page or something like that, and I don’t think that needs to have its own page. That could again cut down on when we actually finally get to some content here.
One other small change I would suggest is on the second page where it says, “The Senate is on X . . .,” and then it says, “Follow the committee using the hashtag #RPRD.” Hashtags on Twitter, or now X, are now becoming kind of obsolete, so I’m not sure if that should be taken out.
The Chair: We have a comment from Senator Batters with respect to the pagination and what we display. We’ve had this issue in previous reports, and my recollection is what we have before us is the usual manner and form in which reports are produced.
Are there views in the committee with respect to the suggestion for elimination of some references and adjustments to the pagination?
Senator Ringuette: I’m good either way, but I think we should be consistent in the way that we report.
The Chair: Well, if you’re good either way, that doesn’t mean you want to be consistent.
Senator Ringuette: Well, let’s just say, chair, that I’m satisfied with the current draft report proposal as it stands.
Senator M. Deacon: Just as a clarification if I could, through you to Senator Batters, the page 2 suggestion you made, could you repeat what that last little part was?
Senator Batters: It currently says on page 2, “Follow the committee using the hashtag #RPRD,” but hashtags on X are kind of becoming obsolete. They’re much less used now than they were a few years ago, so I just suggested that we potentially take that out.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: On that one, I would seek the advice of our communications people. I’m not on X, and I’ve never hashtagged.
Senator D. M. Wells: If there is no harm in having it there, I would leave it.
The Chair: Okay. Colleagues, I would like some direction here as to whether or not we go with the draft as before you, or do you want to incorporate the pagination and reductions of the references to committee membership that are being suggested?
Senator Ringuette: I think we go with the report before us.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there agreement to go with what we have, noting that it is not unanimous, obviously?
If we could then go to page 8, are there any comments with respect to “Introduction”?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 2, line 9, I would suggest that instead of “. . . consulting with the chair and deputy chair of CONF . . .,” we should say, “. . . hearing testimony from . . . .”
The Chair: Are we agreeable to that adjustment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed and noted. Any other commentary on “Introduction”? If not, on “Background”?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 4, line 21, I guess, it says, “The 43rd Parliament was dissolved on August 15, 2021.” Just because there is no indication as to what the background was there, and since this isn’t background, I’d add in after that date reference “due to a federal election” or something like that to provide a bit of context there.
Another small change I would suggest, because it says, “RPRD did not resume this study in the 44th Parliament,” so then I would suggest starting paragraph 5 to say, “In the 45th Parliament, . . . .”
The Chair: Agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Noted.
Are there any other comments on “Background”? If not, let’s move on to page 9, “Provisions governing the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators,” paragraph 7 through to “A. Role.” Any comments?
Senator Batters: In paragraph 10, I have a question about this. It says that the ethics code for senators “. . . requires a five‑year comprehensive review of its provisions and operation.”
I’m just wondering — the chair could perhaps tell us because he is also the chair of that committee — how overdue that particular comprehensive five-year review is. I think it was last done in 2019, perhaps. What is the update on that?
The Chair: It is an ongoing review. It was interrupted by specific cases — and they obviously take priority — and adjustments to guidelines that the Senate Ethics Officer, or SEO, has come forward with that bring clarity to some of the issues that we were actually reviewing at the time. Further adjustments will be forthcoming.
Any comments on “A. Role”?
Senator Batters: In footnote 7 — and this is several times throughout this — it starts with saying, “Office of the Senate Ethics Officer,” as if that’s the author. I don’t understand why the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators is referenced like that, as if the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer is the author. It isn’t. The SEO is not the author of the code; the Senate is. I don’t think it needs to be referenced with that to start, and I think it’s more appropriate to just start it with Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. Perhaps that’s where it’s located, just on the website, but I’m sure it’s located in many places.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Thank you. This is the website we cited, so we put this as the author. We can check if the Senate has it, obviously, on their website as well, and we can link that instead, if that’s agreeable.
Senator Batters: I don’t think you need to list an author for —
Ms. Virgint: It’s just the citation.
Senator Batters: — what we’re governed by. The Senate is the author of it.
Senator Ringuette: I’m indicating that I agree. I agree with Senator Batters that the Senate is —
The Chair: What we could do is just take out “Office of the Senate Ethics Officer” and just cite the code itself.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Noted. Any other comments?
If not, let’s go to “B. Composition.” Any comments? Is it agreed as presented?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Then “Evidence and Recommendations.” Agreed as presented?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: “Principle 1: Fair and Balanced Composition.”
Senator Batters: It’s on the next page, but that’s still part of this certain part. In paragraph 29, line 20 on page 13, it says at the end, “. . . mindful that the unique nature and mandate of CONF is based on impartiality and non-partisanship.” I don’t think it needs to say “non-partisanship.” I don’t think that’s really part of it. Impartiality, yes. Either choose a better word or just end it at “impartiality.”
The Chair: What, in your view, would be a better word, or would you suggest the better word is simply to end at “impartiality”?
Senator Batters: Just delete it. Yes.
The Chair: Paragraph 29, line 20. Okay.
Senator Surette: I would just put the period after “impartiality.”
The Chair: Agreed? Noted. Okay. Thank you.
Other comments?
Senator Batters: At paragraph 30, line 22, it reads, “. . . individual senators to consider the principle of equity . . . .” What does that mean?
Ms. Virgint: This was a point raised at our previous meeting by a member, and I think it means in terms of different types of representation. Some are listed here, but I think it was meant to be open-ended, and we went with the terminology used by the senator at the previous meeting.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: If I may add to my colleague’s comments, Senator K. Wells mentioned in an intervention to “. . . better ensure concepts of equity and regional diversity . . .,” and that took place at the meeting of February 10, 2026.
Senator Batters: Perhaps, then, it could say, “. . . to consider concepts of equity . . .,” as the senator said it, because to refer to it as “the principle of equity,” I don’t know what that means, and I don’t think that’s what he said, but he can perhaps clarify.
The Chair: Colleagues, just so that we’re all on the same sheet then, as I understand it, Senator Batters, would it be, “. . . individual senators to consider the concept of equity, as well as gender and regional diversity . . .”?
Senator Batters: Isn’t that what you said?
Senator Surette: Or should it read, “. . . such as gender and regional diversity . . .”?
The Chair: That’s a good point.
Senator Surette: Is it “as well,” or is it “such as”?
The Chair: Such as, yes.
Senator Kristopher Wells, just so you can reference where you’re at, it’s page 13, paragraph 30.
Senator Saint-Germain: I do agree with the observation, but my concern is about — if I’m not mistaken, nowhere in our draft report the qualities needed to sit on this committee are explained or highlighted. It is only the number of members, regional representation, gender identity, but the first consideration should be what the skills and abilities are that a senator must — I say “must” — have to sit on this very specific committee. It’s nowhere, if I’m not mistaken. I know you will ask how I would word it. I can take a few minutes —
The Chair: That was my next question, yes. If I could just hold that intervention and get to this language first, and then we can have a discussion as to whether and, if so, how to address the issue that you are dealing with.
But as I heard the conversation, “. . . senators to consider the concept of equity such as gender and regional diversity.” Is that —
Senator K. Wells: I would just make a grammar note: “concepts,” since there is more than one.
The Chair: Okay. Is it agreeable as amended? So, “. . . to consider the concepts of equity such as gender and regional diversity.”
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Agreed.
Now let’s get to the point that Senator Saint-Germain raised, and it begs two questions: Ought we include that description of quality? And if so, where, and if so, what? Perhaps, senator, you could go further in your characterization of qualities.
Senator Saint-Germain: We need senators, whichever region they represent or of whichever gender identity and so on, who have the ability to make evidence-based and fair decisions based on the understanding of our code of ethics. We may improve it. I’m improvising. It struck me this morning that we’re only on the incidentals, if I may say so, and not on the fundamental requirements for sitting on this very specific committee.
The Chair: Good point.
Senator Batters: Of course, it’s very important that we have good-quality people who take those very important considerations into account as they’re making some really important decisions. But at no time during this very short study — two meetings only, one five years ago and one this year — did that even get discussed. It’s certainly an important point, but I don’t think we have any factual basis to include it here. It’s not something that was dealt with as one of those principles in the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee report, which is what we’re supposed to be dealing with here.
Senator Downe: I just want to highlight that paragraph 30 is non-binding. The groups can do what they want. If this is non‑binding, I don’t have a problem with it. But you can’t, in my opinion, dictate whom the groups will select. The skill set is very important. Senator Saint-Germain is correct that it’s even more important the more controversial the situation that the people have the ability to do the job. But it has to be left up to the individual groups to come to that conclusion.
The Chair: I think that’s a very good point, and it’s why we specifically used the language of encouraging. In other words, it is for the groups to interpret the level of encouragement. But, Senator Downe, if I could, would you add a line in that paragraph with respect to the characteristics, as Senator Saint‑Germain —
Senator Downe: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Yussuff: It’s just a guide for leaders in regard to their decision. They will decide whatever they want, but it just provides a guide. For somebody considering the committee, at least, if they were looking at this in their consideration, they would see, “Okay, here are some of the things I should be conscious of in regard to accepting the responsibility.”
The Chair: And what would you reference in that?
Senator Yussuff: I agree with the point that Senator Saint‑Germain made. I think you could add that to this same paragraph, and it would be quite appropriate.
Senator Surette: I agree with the comment. You could almost go with roles and responsibilities of the position. But I’m also agreeing with the comment of Senator Batters that we haven’t heard much on that or anything to do with that. So how do we base what we add to this article here? Do we base it on the discussion around the committee, or do we go back to the documents of the Ethics Committee?
The Chair: This particular paragraph references the views of this committee. So I presume that the comments from Senator Saint-Germain are reflective of her view, having heard the testimony and reaching conclusions for this committee, which is not unusual. The committee can reach conclusions.
Senator Ringuette: I have a suggestion here in regard to paragraph 30: “RPRD encourages recognized parliamentary groups, recognized parties and individual senators to objectively consider the concepts . . . .” I think what we want to stress is not only the skill set; I understand that. I don’t want to say which senator has a skill set and which has not. That’s not where we are. But I think the most important issue is for everyone to be objective in selecting their representative. I think the word “objective” needs to be there, so on the second line, I would say, “. . . individual senators to objectively consider the concepts of equity . . . .” It’s a suggestion.
The Chair: Can we just deal with one issue at a time here? Do you have a view as to whether or not to reference the characteristics that Senator Saint-Germain has suggested?
Senator Ringuette: Honestly, I believe that we don’t need to go there. I agree with Senator Downe that the groups know better their colleagues within and their capabilities and experience in dealing with issues that are pertinent to the code.
Senator Yussuff: This place goes through a lot of changes on a regular basis, and this year or next year there will be a lot of people coming and going here. There has to be some historical reference to give us some guidelines. I don’t think it hurts us as an institution to have some reference. Whether a group chooses to recognize those suggestions or not is for them to decide, but at least it provides some guidance, because we want the place to have some continuity in how it governs itself.
The Chair: Could I ask for a specific sentence you would suggest we add? Because that would, I think, benefit whether or not we should add it. What would that sentence be, Senator Yussuff and Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator K. Wells: Do you want me to jump in with a sentence?
The Chair: Sure.
Senator K. Wells: Maybe something to the effect that a member should demonstrate impartiality, sound judgment and integrity, just re-emphasizing those are important qualities of someone who sits on this committee.
Senator M. Deacon: That’s a good sentence. There’s no question. I’m just diving in as a replacement, but I was here for some of the original discussion. That language needs to differentiate this group, this committee, from the other 18. I’m hoping that sound judgment, impartiality and — right? But to be very candid, there are a lot of folks who would say, “I want to be on CONF; it’s on Wednesdays, and it works for my schedule, and I think it would be very interesting.” Those are not the skills we want in the room. I know that. We have to find something, if we’re going to do it, that distinguishes from the skills that we would ask from all our committee members on every committee.
Senator Surette: I agree with that, plus we’re just repeating the last part of paragraph 29, the “. . . nature and mandate of CONF . . .,” except we don’t talk about the member itself — oh, “. . . members must remain mindful that the unique nature and mandate of CONF is based on impartiality . . . .”
The Chair: That’s a characteristic.
Senator M. Deacon: I am guilty of thinking and talking at the same time. My apologies. Again, this could be indicative in other committees, but this one deals with really sensitive, confidential matter that interfaces with different parts of the Senate. And we can’t just say “confidential” or “in camera” because that would be generic. If I had to think of something, Senator Saint‑Germain, it would be that sensitivity of complex information. But then a committee chair at another might say, “We all do that, Marty; shake your head.”
The Chair: There are unique characteristics for this committee. This committee has a unique mandate, but you could argue that every committee has a unique mandate.
Senator D. M. Wells: Senator Marty Deacon talked about convenience of schedule as one of the things to consider, which is true. We talk about geographical or regional diversity and we talk about gender. Nowhere have we talked about merit, even though each individual caucus or group chooses their own member. Really, the only defining characteristic we have is that it has to be one from each group. We don’t talk about gender. We don’t talk about geography. We don’t talk about scheduling convenience, which I think we should not talk about. The groups will choose. Leaders are leaders because they have been given that mandate by members of their caucus, and I don’t know if we need to go beyond that.
The Chair: One suggestion, just to capture what you’ve said, would be, in paragraph 29, to say, “. . . based on impartiality and merit.” And, Senator Saint-Germain, that might address some of the concerns you were raising.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, but I like very much the word “integrity” that Senator Kristopher Wells just added, so honour, integrity. Would it be possible to find a liaison between paragraphs 29 and 30 in order to make sure that paragraph 29 supersedes 30? I’m just looking for the wording of it because paragraph 29 is key.
The Chair: I will just throw this out and then go back to the list. Paragraph 29 could read, “. . . the unique nature and mandate of CONF is based on impartiality, merit and integrity,” period. And you could then leave paragraph 30 as is.
Senator Batters: That doesn’t make sense because it is saying the mandate of the committee is based on merit, and I would hope that every committee has meritorious consideration.
The Chair: That’s true.
Senator Batters: And, frankly, every member of every committee, I would hope, has merit. I don’t think that’s the right word. I think the previous paragraph should stick with “impartiality” because, again, if you are saying CONF is based on integrity, you’re talking about the committee. I would hope that senators as a whole are all supposed to carry ourselves with integrity and honour. So I don’t think that adds anything.
Senator Saint-Germain: Again, I believe that this committee is unique. Its unique character is about peers making recommendations to the Senate regarding a colleague. This is the only committee — except for Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA, in certain aspects — that can make these types of recommendations. This is why I believe that integrity is important. I concur with Senator Batters. The notion of merit is not specific to this committee.
Senator Downe: I will say again for the record that I am participating in this exercise, but I stated clearly before it is my view that this governance model is outdated and would not be accepted anywhere else — senators reviewing senators. The Senate collectively should be looking at a more distant model to keep current, but, given what we have now, the wording remains — I could make some suggestions on the wording as well, but it goes back to the earlier point that, under our current system, each group will appoint whom they want to appoint, regardless of what we put in here. It’s nice to have some guardrails and guidelines. Particularly, Senator Yussuff made the point that if people are interested in them, they could read them and see if they meet that bar, but the overall wording is immaterial when it comes to who is on the committee in the final analysis.
Senator K. Wells: I could take another shot at the wording, maybe, based on what I was hearing. It could be something to the effect of, “The Ethics Committee sits in judgment of individual colleagues, making the personal integrity, demonstrated impartiality and freedom from conflict of interest of its members not merely desirable but essential.”
We could also add, “Members should be selected based on their knowledge and merit,” if we wanted further criteria, or we could drop the last sentence. I will repeat it: “Members should be selected based on their knowledge and merit.” That sort of connects back to the first sentence, reinforcing the qualities that are needed to sit on this particular committee.
Senator Yussuff: Without sounding repetitive, with all due respect, I agree with Senator Downe. This is a political decision by leaders about whom they’re going to —
The Chair: By caucuses and groups.
Senator Yussuff: As much as we would like to be prescriptive as we would like to be, the reality is, “Mind your own business; I will appoint whoever I choose to appoint to represent the group because I have confidence in he or she doing this on behalf of our group.” The more prescriptive you get, I’m not sure it is helpful. I think it just loses its flavour as opposed to — there should be some guardrails, but I don’t think we should overstate it in a way that would prevent leaders from making the impartial decisions they need to make.
The Chair: That leaves us, colleagues, with the wording as amended thus far, which is that paragraph 30 would be:
RPRD encourages recognized parliamentary groups, recognized parties and individual senators to consider the concepts of equity such as gender and regional diversity, as well as integrity, when selecting members to serve on CONF.
Is that agreeable? Does that capture the conversation at a level of consensus? I’ll repeat:
. . . encourages recognized parliamentary groups, recognized parties and individual senators to consider the concepts of equity such as gender and regional diversity, as well as integrity, when selecting members to serve on CONF.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would suggest, “. . . consider integrity . . .” and then “. . . as well as gender and regional diversity . . .” — I believe that the priority is —
The Chair: If the committee wishes. Shall we flip the concepts then? So it would read:
. . . to consider issues such as integrity, the concepts of equity such as gender and regional diversity when selecting members to serve on CONF.
Senator Batters: That’s really watering down the issue of it to call it “the issue of integrity.” Frankly, I have to say that if we even have to tell parliamentary groups and leaders to consider integrity, come on. I don’t think this is needed. If they are not considering integrity, they don’t get it.
Senator Yussuff: I don’t know who doesn’t have integrity who has been appointed to the Senate, but I may have missed somebody along the way.
The Chair: I agree.
Senator Burey: I was just listening to the comments. I wasn’t present when the bulk — well, any — of the testimony was given, but thinking as a general principle, if the Ethics Committee doesn’t have the trust of the Senate, it really doesn’t function well. And I think we are, in my mind, just going around, using words to say something that is inherent in the substance of what the Ethics Committee is. If you don’t trust it, if you don’t trust the people who are there, whatever decisions are made, they won’t stand. So, I am of the opinion, along with Senator Ringuette, Senator Downe and probably Senator Batters, that we shouldn’t try to wordsmith as much as we are doing it. That’s what I am saying.
The Chair: Let me see if this one will fly:
. . . encourages recognized parliamentary groups, recognized parties and individual senators to consider the concepts of equity such as gender and regional diversity when selecting members to serve on CONF.
Senator Saint-Germain, that doesn’t include the word “integrity.”
Senator Saint-Germain: But if we add the word “integrity” to paragraph 29 to read, “. . . honour, integrity, and serve . . .,” then this would fix the issue. But I like the word “integrity” regarding this specific committee.
The Chair: Can you tell me where?
Senator Saint-Germain: Paragraph 29, we had discussed this. Adding the word “integrity” in line 14: “. . . honour, integrity, and serve in an individual capacity.”
The Chair: Okay, is there a view on that suggestion?
Senator K. Wells: I agree; it doesn’t work in paragraph 30, but it works in 29. A friendly suggestion would be to say, “ . . . act with integrity and honour . . . .”
The Chair: Integrity and honour.
Senator D. M. Wells: I would like to point out that when we talk about the decision on who would be selected to go on this committee, it’s not done as a collective. Leaders or groups don’t sit around and go, “Well, we have someone from the West; we need someone from the East.” They choose their own individual candidate. And they might all be from Newfoundland and Labrador, a place where there is a high degree of integrity and all the positive attributes that we are discussing.
I don’t disagree with any groups considering these things, but these selections are not done as a group. They are done individually, with walls in between each selector. I’m not sure the consideration of gender, regional or geographical place belongs here, because they are not applied in the real world — not that the Senate is not the real world — but they don’t apply in the real world of how we make decisions, whereas other things do, like integrity.
The Chair: Which is why paragraphs 29 and 30 are different. Paragraph 30 is entirely suggestion; paragraph 29 is we are affirming the value. In that sense, I could see the suggestion of including integrity in 29 as having value and leaving 30 the way we have adjusted it slightly.
Senator Surette: I have just a small point on Senator Wells’ comment. The only exception would be that if we go with the recommendation that there be one member elected at large, that could be taken into consideration.
The Chair: Let me see if I can get a consensus here. In paragraph 29, “ . . . are accountable to the Senate, act with honour and integrity . . .”?
Some Hon. Senators: Integrity, then honour.
The Chair: Okay. And in paragraph 30, “ . . . to consider the concepts of equity such as gender and regional diversity when selecting members to serve on CONF.”
Senator Ringuette: There is no harm there.
The Chair: Is there a consensus to move with those changes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Anything else on “RPRD Considerations”? Hearing none, we get to the recommendation section.
Senator D. M. Wells: I have one thing in paragraph 31. “Some members of RPRD . . .” I would say, “expressed,” past tense.
The Chair: Noted. Shall we get to the recommendations then?
Senator Batters: Just before we go to that, in this whole section, the draft recommendation here is that “. . . each recognized parliamentary group or recognized party should designate one member . . . .” As I’ve said many times, including throughout this short study — and I know that there are recommendations later that temper it a bit — I think we need to set the factual basis, and there is no reference anywhere in this initial part, in this section, to the fact that this could lead to way too many people on this committee. Especially because it has been noted that it is necessary for it to be a smaller committee due to the confidentiality involved and that sort of thing, it’s fine that it later on deals with that, but I think we need some sort of factual basis set forward to say that if we had many recognized parliamentary groups and recognized parties in the Senate, because there is only the threshold of having nine senators in one of those groups, we could have potentially 10 different groups or something like that, plus a senator at large. I just think that there needs to be at least a short factual reference to it, rather than just setting out later on what the conclusion is.
Senator Saint-Germain: I concur with Senator Batters. Would a solution be “. . . recognized according to the Parliament of Canada Act . . .” or something like that? Would a reference to the Parliament of Canada Act fix this issue?
The Chair: That would be certainly one way of using an exogenous reference to limit that. Where would you put that?
Senator Batters: In one of these paragraphs in “RPRD Considerations,” there could be a separate part to say even, “Some members of RPRD expressed concerns about the number of senators that could end up potentially being on this committee because of the Parliament of Canada Act thresholds” or something like that.
The Chair: As I understand Senator Saint-Germain’s suggestion, it would be that the committee suggests that the groups, caucuses or parliamentary groups that are entitled to membership be those that are recognized under the Parliament of Canada Act.
Senator Ringuette: Chair, if my memory is right, I think there is a maximum of three — well, as independent groups of senators. I think that’s three, and then you have the opposition and — so that would limit it to five.
Senator Batters: The Parliament of Canada Act just limits the number of groups that are getting leadership positions paid for. It doesn’t limit the number of groups, so that would need to be specifically set out or something like that. That’s quite a different thing to say.
Senator K. Wells: I may argue that if we’re at the point of having that many groups and we’re not giving them a spot on the Ethics Committee, we may just have to rework the membership of the Ethics Committee to be a general election rather than representation from each of the groups if we are trying to keep it small. We are trying to solve a problem that has not yet happened. If that does happen, that may mean an entire reworking of the membership, period.
The Chair: I will recall to senators the testimony when Senator Tannas was asked this question. He said, “So be it then.” He was calmer than some about the notion that should there be more groups, we’d have a larger committee.
So where are we at here on this reference? Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: You know what? I have no concern if the committee goes to seven or eight. I find that each potential group — as Senator Kristopher Wells has just indicated, we’re looking at dealing with a problem that has not occurred and may not occur. So I think that the current recommendation is okay. If in the future it becomes a problem, then this committee can review, but for the time being, I don’t think we should hang our hats on this one.
Senator Batters: There are parts later in this report where it deals with what happens if there are too many and discussion about that. All I’m talking about here is that I think we at least need in this factual part of the “RPRD Considerations” section, at the very least — otherwise, why do I talk at this committee? I expressed, and I think others had similar concerns, that having many, many different groups — potentially 9 or 10 groups — could lead to a very large number.
There can be a reference to the Parliament of Canada Act and how that sets out what the threshold is or the Rules of the Senate or what have you, but at least there needs to be some sort of reference in this section. That is not to say at this point that all members agree, but at least there should be some indication that some members of the Rules Committee expressed concerns. That’s what I would suggest because there is no factual underpinning for later.
The Chair: Do you have precise wording on what you would say? “Some members of RPRD expressed concerns with regard to . . .”?
Senator Batters: “. . . with regard to the potential number of senators . . .” — I don’t know. I mean, I would have thought this would be part of it already. Maybe “. . . regarding senators who are members of the Ethics Committee, given the . . .” — I can’t draft it on the fly — “ . . . given the threshold of nine senators per recognized parliamentary group or recognized party.”
I don’t know. I mean, it is something we can look at later, but that’s a concern that I raised a number of different times at this meeting when we discussed this.
Senator Yussuff: You could add a paragraph to say that in the event a new parliamentary group gets formed in the Senate that doesn’t have representation, the committee would need to consider how best to give them representation.
It is simple. It is not convoluted, but it allows us to —
The Chair: That is provided for later, yes.
The reason I ask, Senator Batters, is I’m not sure your language is necessary, given how we later on deal with membership. I understand that you have raised the concern, but I’m not sure that the concern is broadly shared in language that we could agree on.
Senator Batters: I don’t know if it necessarily needs to be broadly agreed to when we’re just setting out considerations and facts.
The Chair: I understand that.
Senator Batters: And then we do have different conclusions that we reach later. I’m just trying to set some factual underpinning for those conclusions because nowhere in here does it even talk about the fact that the threshold is nine senators to be part of a group, so somebody reading this report might not understand what the potential concern could be.
The Chair: I think, senator, let me try out something with our colleagues: “Some senators expressed concern over the potential size of CONF should significantly more groups be formed,” period. Just leave it at that. It is just a statement, and it’s accurate.
Senator Batters: Yes. That’s all I was thinking.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Batters: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed?
Senator Batters: Agreed.
The Chair: Very good.
Noted.
Senator Downe: Can we look at paragraph 34?
The Chair: Yes, sorry.
Senator Downe: You have a lot of balls in the air there, so it is hard to keep up.
For lines 8 and 9, I would suggest that this committee consider recommending a similar course of action that the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight has done by having an external member. I think it would give more credibility to the Senate. It would take away any concern that the public may have that things are being done in the back room. I would recommend that we change lines 8 and 9 to now read:
. . . an additional outside member should be approved by members of the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators after a public application process.
Colleagues will know that this is the procedure the Audit and Oversight Committee used. They had a public display of interest. They ended up selecting two outstanding members. Senator David Wells was a driving force in that. I think it has served the Senate well, given the problems we have had in the past with spending scandals. I think this would be a proactive measure to prevent any future problems on the conflict side.
The Chair: If I could speak to that, just for information, I have a concern that it comes from this committee as opposed to the Ethics Committee itself. It just says, “Audit and Oversight.” It was their motion that led to this addition.
I can also report that there have been some suggestions in that regard in the other committee, and it has not been taken up by that committee.
Senator Downe: In what other committee?
The Chair: At the Ethics Committee. I would think it would be more appropriate for that to come from the committee itself, just as it came from the Audit and Oversight Committee, as opposed to coming from the Rules Committee to the committees. That’s my sense of who is on first on this.
Senator Downe: Thanks. I’m not sure. You may be correct. I’m not sure Audit and Oversight did that on their own. I thought it was driven by the Senate itself when we set the committee up.
The Chair: It was driven by the conversations that set up the committee, absolutely, but it was done in the context of setting up the committee, not coming out of the Rules Committee.
Senator Downe: Right, but when the Audit and Oversight Committee was set up, there was a position for two external members at the time, so the committee was just fulfilling the mandate.
The Chair: Correct, but it was done in the consideration of the committee, not the Rules —
Senator Downe: I appreciate that.
But this, I think we leave it to the committee. We are making recommendations here. This is a recommendation to them. They may or may not accept it.
That’s my suggestion.
The Chair: Commentary?
Senator Batters: First of all, we would never know if the Ethics Committee had agreed or not agreed to it, because all of their meetings are basically in camera. So we wouldn’t know.
As much as I may agree with this particular recommendation that this could be a good answer to making sure that we not only have excellent integrity for that committee but are seen by the public to have that, I don’t think that, on a very brief study where we didn’t have any discussion about this or testimony or hear anything about the pros and cons and how we could achieve that, the appropriate place would be to just plug it into a recommendation from the Rules Committee without any ability to have that.
That could be something that we go forward with in a different way or that the Senate, perhaps, goes forward with in a different way, but I don’t think plugging it into a recommendation here when we haven’t had any discussion about it would be the best way to do it.
Senator K. Wells: Yes, I agree with Senator Batters. I don’t think we have studied that issue to be able to put forward a recommendation, as good as the suggestion may be.
I also agree that the Ethics Committee itself should be discussing that, and then if we needed to make a rule change, it would come back to this committee.
Senator Yussuff: The committee deals with the judgment of colleagues around their ethics, and I appreciate the sensitivity but also the serious nature of that effort.
I think, given the confidentiality of how these matters are dealt with, I don’t know how an external member can add any more value, because he or she can’t go out publicly to speak about something that quite often is dealt with in a way that even us, as senators, are not aware of. I appreciate that reality.
I think the finances are very different. Our finances are very public. We have to post it. We have to account for it, and, more importantly, the public should have a right to know how we spend our budget in the Senate. I just think this is very different.
We also have somebody who is here to help guide us in regard to our conflicts of interest and ethics in the Senate and who is a public person and who has some other very public responsibility in that sense.
I understand Senator Downe’s point in an external member, but I do have some challenges in getting my head around how that person could be of value to this, given the secret nature of how most of this is dealt with, and it has never been in the public domain to a large extent for us to comment on it at the end of the day.
Senator D. M. Wells: Senator Yussuff makes a good point. I would not say “secret nature”; I would say “confidential nature.” Under the Ethics Committee, there should be that investigation or consideration of whatever the issue is. That consideration often should not be done in public, because conclusions are jumped to quickly, which can have a serious effect. There is that one point.
The other point I want to make is regarding the genesis of the external members on the Audit and Oversight Committee, which Senator Downe and I and former senator Renée Dupuis were part of — that original membership of the committee. We did it for two reasons. First, in the recommendations by the Auditor General back in 2015, a recommendation included that it be full external members or non-senators because it was felt that we shouldn’t be marking our own homework. So, rather than ceding the authority, which I think we should never do — we can delegate but not cede authority — the committee decided to invite two external members who would not have voting rights but who could, along with any other member of the committee, provide a separate report. That was more of a transparency issue.
The other reason, which was just as significant, was that it is only by luck or chance that 105 members of the Senate might have an expert in audit, chartered accountancy or anything like that. Even if we did have one or two members — which we do now — the last thing they might want to do is sit on the Audit and Oversight Committee, which I get. So, we knew we didn’t or would not likely have resident expertise on the Audit and Oversight Committee. Senator Downe, Senator Dupuis and I did not have that depth of experience. So that was the other reason: We wanted to bring in experts who could look at these things better than we could or with a more educated eye.
With respect to having external members on the Ethics Committee, while I appreciate the concept of it, I think senators probably know the arcane and quirky nature of the Senate more than any person who is not a senator could. It is not that I don’t see the value in it — I do see a value in external opinions, but they can be sought without becoming a member of the committee, so I would not necessarily be in favour.
To Senator K. Wells’ point, we really didn’t go into depth on this during our study, and I don’t think it belongs in a recommendation. It could be part of a consideration that the committee touched on lightly or whatever, but I don’t think it meets the test of becoming a recommendation.
Senator Downe: I may be reading the room wrong, but I don’t think there is a consensus on that motion. I would caution the committee — and to use Senator D. M. Wells’ comments — the perception that we’re marking our own homework is a problem, in my opinion, so I was just trying to propose a solution. The fact that we haven’t talked about it doesn’t mean we can’t put in a recommendation if we think it’s good governance, which I obviously believe, but the comments were what they were.
The Chair: Senator, even if it is not in this report, it is something I can report to the other committee as an issue that was discussed.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
The Chair: With that, shall we move, then, to the recommendation with respect to paragraph 34? Senators, if you take the spreadsheet, the first suggestion is for the new version. There are two options: current and new English. The wording would be:
. . . the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, one member from each recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, and one member at large elected by secret ballot by the Senate, as provided in rules 12-26(1) to 12-26(3); and
That’s the technical language that fulfills that description. Is that agreed to?
With this wording, there is no minimum or maximum number of members — we should just note that — and groups that are granted recognized party or group status by sessional order before the motion setting the membership for the Ethics Committee is moved — I’m not sure where we’re at now if you want guidance on.
I would like to confirm that we agree with the draft amendment that groups that are granted recognized party or group status by sessional order, like the current Government Representative’s Office, before the motion setting the membership for the Ethics Committee is moved and deemed adopted would be allowed to sit on the Ethics Committee unless the sessional order includes provisions to the contrary.
That is how it is drafted. We have had discussions on this point. What is the will of the committee?
This is 12-3(2)(f).
Céline Ethier, Clerk of the Committee: We would just like to make sure that senators are aware of the intricacies of the way the amendment is written right now. Right now, the new one would read, “. . . one member from each recognized party or recognized parliamentary group . . . .” That would mean that if a motion were adopted in the chamber giving recognized status to a group before this motion is presented and adopted, setting the membership for the Ethics Committee, that group that got their recognition by motion would be allowed a seat. If that designation came afterward, there would need to be something in that motion prohibiting that group from getting a member.
That’s all we want to make sure that you’re aware of.
Senator Ringuette: My impression is that we didn’t want to prohibit any parliamentary group from having a member on the Ethics Committee, so the current wording of 12-3(2)(f) is correct, as far as I’m concerned.
The Chair: Yes.
Agreed? Then let’s move on — yes, of course.
Paragraph 35: “The selection process occur on a sessional basis” is the recommendation. The wording for that in the Rules would be as you see in the long sheet — 12-26(1) reads:
As soon as practicable at the beginning of each session, the Leader or Representative of the Government shall move a motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders or facilitators of any other recognized parties or recognized parliamentary groups appointing a member from each recognized party or recognized parliamentary group with a recognized status at the beginning of the parliamentary session, to the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. Except as otherwise provided, substitutions in the membership of the committee shall be made by way of a motion moved in the Senate by the leader or facilitator whose member is being substituted. Nomination motions shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote.
Are senators comfortable with that wording?
Senator Batters: I have a question about this.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Batters: As to the part where it says that it’s to be “. . . by way of a motion moved in the Senate by the leader or facilitator whose member is being substituted,” what if it’s a non-affiliated senator, which could be the person who is elected by the Senate as a whole, or is that not applicable here because of the vacancy part that would potentially be added in the new section?
The Chair: Yes, it’s only a substitution on the retirement of a senator or a change of party status of a senator.
Senator Batters: Right, but what if that senator —
The Chair: If they are not affiliated, it would be under the replacement section for the member at large.
Senator Batters: Okay. So you’re saying that is not something to worry about here because of the vacancy part in there.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Batters: That is just what I wanted to confirm because I saw that as potentially being a problem.
The Chair: Agreed?
Senator Batters: Yes. I’m sorry, chair. There was a very small thing at the end of paragraph 34: It should end with a period and not a semicolon.
The Chair: Noted. Thank you.
This assumes the status quo for the session. If the status quo is altered by the formation or abandonment of a group that fails to meet the status, it lasts for the session, but we have the instrument of a sessional order to make adjustments as needed. I don’t think you want to capture that in the Rules because it gets too muddy. Agreed?
The substitution motion, which is what the current practice is, that is to say the substitution motion is tabled and deemed adopted — but deemed adopted seems to me to make more sense because it is the gift of the leader and their group, not the Senate as a whole. Is that agreed?
Now we’re going to “Flexible Number of Members,” paragraphs 36, 37, 38 and 39. Any commentary? We then get to the recommendation with respect to this section. Are there any comments on paragraphs 40 to 45 before we get to the recommendation? Hearing none, let’s get to the recommendation, and you have the suggested change.
For paragraph 45, we have two options that have been proposed. There is option 1:
. . . which specifies that CONF is to be composed of five members, be maintained, and that the Senate continue to adopt sessional orders to modify the number of members as it deems necessary.
Or option 2, which would amend the rule:
. . . to specify that the number of members of CONF should reflect the number of recognized parliamentary groups and recognized parties in the Senate at the beginning of a session.
It seems to me to be the second option that reflects our conclusions, but I want to confirm that. It is moved. Is it agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So agreed.
Now we are at “Principle 3: Process for Filling a Vacancy.” Any commentary on that? And then the recommendation with respect to that option is where? Paragraph 53 describes the recommendation. So you have that in your spreadsheet under “NEW PROVISION” for 12-26(2):
After the adoption of the motion provided in subsection (1), and at any subsequent time during the course of a parliamentary session that the position of a member at large becomes vacant, a member at large shall be elected by secret ballot, provided that if more than two senators stand for election, the election will be conducted by ranked ballot.
And the new provision for 12-26(3):
Within the first five sitting days after the adoption of the motion provided in subsection (1), and subsequently within the first five sitting days of a vacancy arising in the position of a member at large, the Speaker shall, after consulting with the Leader or Representative of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, and the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, inform the Senate of the process for senators to become candidates and for the conduct of the election.
That reflects the considerations we had and would be the rule change. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next, “Principle 4: Change in Affiliation,” paragraphs 54 to 59. Comments, if any?
If we could go to paragraph 60, staff is suggesting there are two options for us. We could leave it in the hands of leaders or the Selection Committee, as is done with other committees. But my view would be that, as the Selection Committee does not deal with the Ethics Committee, the Rules should deal with the Ethics Committee; therefore, we should amend the rules, the wording of which would be where?
Ms. Ethier: We don’t have wording for that yet. We have to get instructions.
The Chair: So essentially, we can’t conclude this because we don’t have the wording of the option I’m suggesting, but it would seem to me if the Selection Committee isn’t involved in the establishment of membership of the Ethics Committee, the Selection Committee cannot be introduced at this point. You have to go back to the origin.
Senator D. M. Wells: I agree with you on that point, chair. I think we should also note here that if a senator ceases to be a member of a recognized caucus or group and the elected senator is from that same caucus or group, that elected senator would still be held in a separate category for purposes of reappointment to the committee.
So however that’s uniquely worded — not the way I’ve worded it — I think should be considered.
Senator Batters: I have a couple of suggested changes to the wording of paragraph 60. One small change in line 21: Instead of “the” recognized parliamentary group, I would suggest it say “that” for more precision.
To end it, instead of just saying, “. . . determine the successor,” it should say, “. . . determine the successor committee member.”
The Chair: Noted. Could I get the agreement of the committee to allow staff to give us the proposed precise language that corresponds to the consensus that we have on this point?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Now turning to “Principle 5: Continuity of Membership Between Sessions.” Any commentary on that?
Senator Batters: I wanted to note, in paragraph 67, it’s talking about the different considerations and saying that the Ethics Committee’s election of additional members should take place only after these different things and the different considerations that could be taken into account there. That could also include a smaller additional group into the future not having representation otherwise. That could be another — so when they’re talking about other factors that could be fit to consider, factors such as gender and regional diversity, it could also say group status. I don’t know how you’d word that, but something like that could potentially be a very important part of deciding to put somebody in that member-at-large position. They might belong to a group that doesn’t normally receive a spot, but they could with that.
The Chair: That’s highly hypothetical but understandable. Are we open to having a reference like that hypothetical situation?
Senator Batters: We don’t need to include it. I just wanted to bring it up as a potentially important consideration.
The Chair: Exactly. Let’s leave it then. For the rule language for that section, I’ll ask the clerk to read rule 12-26(1).
Ms. Ethier: It begins with, “As soon as practicable at the beginning of each session . . . .” That would be the timing of that first motion to set membership.
Senator Batters: Let’s just maintain it, right?
The Chair: Yes. Agreed?
Then we have “Principle 6: Reduce Membership Barriers.”
Senator Batters: In paragraph 75 at the top of page 20, it’s talking about the 2019 CONF report where they expressed an opposite view, saying that “. . . ‘no member of the committee should serve on CIBA as a regular member.’” I just wonder if that seventh report of the Ethics Committee had any rationale for that. If it did, then I think there should be something even briefly stated here because, as you will recall, I did try to bring former senators who were very esteemed colleagues who helped set up the Senate ethics code to begin with to this committee to testify about that, but this committee did not want to hear from those senators. I think there should be some indication as to what their rationale was, since they actually did express that opposite view in the report.
The Chair: Do senators feel that would be a useful addition? The concern, of course, is a potential overlap of issues.
Senator Batters: Can we find out if it includes a rationale for that? And if it does, I think — all it says here is that CONF expressed an opposite view in that report.
The Chair: Can we read the sentence from the report, senator?
Ms. Virgint: It states:
Finally, no member of the committee should serve on CIBA as a regular member, in order to preserve the integrity of decisions made under processes within the Senate that regulate the conduct of senators and minimize the potential needs for recusals.
Senator Batters: Well, that’s a pretty brief thing that you could just quote directly from that to say they had this rationale.
The Chair: Is it agreed to add that rationale? I’m fine with that.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Noted.
Senator Batters: In paragraph 77, I would just suggest potentially dividing this into two because otherwise it kind of minimizes it. No doubt that was largely me bringing up the concern of whether serving both on CIBA and on CONF could create conflicts of interest, as well as leadership positions, because those ethical concerns could be coming from all different angles, and it may be difficult for anyone to keep those separate. I thought perhaps that concern deserved its own paragraph. Then Senator Tannas’s response could come in a separate paragraph, rather than lumping it together. The concern was expressed. One senator said he didn’t feel uncomfortable, though he had that experience. I suggest that gives it a little bit more —
The Chair: Are senators comfortable with dividing that into two paragraphs, 77 and the new 78?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Noted. That will change the paragraph pagination going forward.
Next we have paragraphs 78 to 82 and the recommendation with respect to those considerations:
RPRD recommends that the amendments included in this report come into effect on the last day of the First Session of the Forty-fifth Parliament.
That is to say just before prorogation.
Senator Batters: Just before that, that last part about the current practice to be maintained, I want it noted that I’d like that to be set out as on division because I’ve expressed my concerns about that multiple times at this committee. I don’t want it to be said that I agreed to that.
The Chair: Noted.
Is there agreement, then, with respect to the coming into force? That would be the normal coming into force of rule changes. It’s for the new session that it would take effect. That’s a similar recommendation to the one we had with respect to the Senate Question Period for ministers. That’s agreed to.
Is it agreeable to maintain quorum for that committee at three?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Then we have the witness list, and that’s it.
If I could, senators, I will ask for a new draft of this report with the recommendations of the rule changes in the report. There is one rule change, the wording of which we will confirm specifically because we have the concept but not the words. Then we can adopt the report, should that be your wish, at the next committee. Is that agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senators, we have a little bit of time left. I don’t think we will get into the next subject matter, but I would like to suggest the plan ahead.
We have the committee study, which we referenced briefly at our last meeting and was circulated in January. At that time, you will recall that there was a commitment made to ensure that, in our respective groups and caucuses, there would be at least some discussion of this item. I think it would be helpful for us as a committee to have a sense of appetite for change that this report presages. That appetite hasn’t always been in the Senate, and I think we should test that before the committee delves into the study again. I would suggest that might be something that we could come back to at our next meeting to see whether or not this committee feels it would be a timely and efficient use of our time to propose changes to the committee structures.
Senator Batters: Given that that’s being discussed right now and it would have been nice to be able to plan time for that sort of a discussion at our different caucus and group meetings, maybe it would be a good idea to have that discussion at the meeting following our next one, instead of at our very next meeting, to ensure there is time to have that discussion so we don’t come back and realize that some groups have not had an opportunity for that.
The Chair: I understand that. Mind you, the first suggestion of this was at our January meeting.
Senator Downe: Chair, it might be useful for you to send a note to each caucus or group chair requesting feedback on this so that, even if nobody responds, everybody has been notified.
The Chair: Yes, I can do that if there is agreement. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Batters, I don’t want to rush the discussion, so I’m happy for it to be two weeks hence. I just want to make sure there is at least some appetite for it. That would mean that, at our next meeting, we could review the work plan subject to that feedback.
Regarding the e-petitions, there is a discussion paper that has been circulated, and I would suggest that be an item for further conversation at our next meeting. We could decide whether or not there is an appetite to pursue some of the reforms that are implied in the draft report. We could, then, determine whether or not our work plan going forward would include the issue of Senate public bills, which we discussed earlier. In preparation for that, I’ve asked our analysts to begin to put forward a paper that could highlight some of the issues and some of the ways in which other jurisdictions have dealt with Senate public bills or the equivalent thereof and that could help frame our discussion. I would hope that when we have that discussion, you could also have some ideas of a potential witness list for that study.
In summary, going forward, at our next meeting, we will finish off the Ethics Committee report and we will deal with e‑petitions. In two meetings hence, we will deal with the committee changes, and I will write a letter to the respective heads of groups to remind them of our desire for input.
Senator K. Wells: On that note, I’m wondering if, in your letter to the group leaders, we could also mention the Senate public bills for feedback. That might be a discussion item the groups want to have as well, or is that a “cart before the horse” kind of thing?
The Chair: I don’t see any harm in it. It would take a while for the groups to form views, I would think.
Senator Batters: Being the caucus chair for our group, I think many of us are here as a member from our group, and I know we, at our meetings, often have discussions about different committee topics that are happening. Rather than having the chair write to all these different groups, I feel it is part of our duty as being part of a group and being on this committee to bring these issues forward anyway. I don’t know if we need to have the chair write to every group or caucus leader asking about all these different items.
The Chair: I am in the hands of the committee.
Senator Ringuette: Chair, I see absolutely no harm in you, as chair of this committee, extending our work plan and welcoming comments from the different groups. I think it is welcome, as far as I am concerned.
The Chair: The final issue, colleagues, is dress code. A document was circulated which suggests that there is very little guidance provided and a reluctance to provide guidance, but we can take that up as well in our work plan.
With that, colleagues, I thank you for your work today.
Senator Ringuette: Chair, we have produced a few reports now in this session, and I would like to know what the delay is in the adoption of these reports so that our work is not left on the sidelines.
The Chair: We have one report that requires adoption. That’s our first report. The second report doesn’t require adoption because it is, in a sense, for information. I know this was raised at scroll, and I will ask a member of scroll to, perhaps, update us all.
Senator White: Thank you. It was raised at scroll this morning, and we’re just waiting for Senator Martin to get back to us to confirm. I think it is fine. She just wanted to check with her group.
The Chair: I think that’s progress. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)