THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 5, 2026
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 10 a.m. [ET] for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all senators as well as viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Peter Harder, and I’m the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament. I would ask colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, Charlottetown.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, I welcome Senator Ataullahjan back to this committee after a bit of an absence. We welcome you back as a member of this committee.
The purpose of today’s meeting, colleagues, is to discuss our future agenda and how we wish to proceed. In that context, I’ll remind you that we have a maximum of five sessions after this before the anticipated rise for the summer.
You will recall that we have had some discussion of the e‑petitions issue. At one point, we had hoped that we would have a panel today of members of Parliament who have used e‑petitions. That couldn’t be done, although a number of parliamentarians have indicated they would be willing to come were we to continue with that study at some point.
You will also recall that at the last meeting there was a sense that we should suspend that subject matter and go forward with the study on Senate public bills.
I would also like to bring you up to date on some of the developments with respect to the study of committees and committee mandates. There have been two papers circulated of reports from groups with respect to their views that we asked to be surveyed. Senator Batters has indicated that her group has had the discussion and that when we get to that point, she will be willing to participate in describing the views of her group.
In a sense, that’s the update on the three tracks we have available to us. If I read the room correctly last time, it was that we would wish to begin the study of Senate public bills as a priority, suspend for now the work on petitions and determine how we might proceed with the review of committees and committee mandates only after a discussion as to whether or not there is an “appetite” to do that.
If I could confirm that that is the right reading of the room, I would then invite a discussion on how we proceed with the Senate public bills.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to ask — the committee clerk could tell us, given that you just indicated, chair, that some of the members of Parliament do want to take part in this e-petition study but weren’t available for today — are they potentially available for the next meeting? If they are, maybe it makes sense to have that take place at the meeting on May 26 or in that last week of May. That would seem to make sense as long as they are potentially available. I don’t know what the update is on that.
The Chair: Clerk, could you give us the update?
Céline Ethier, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Three MPs got back to me saying if there was another date available, they would come. That would be MP Gord Johns, MP Jenny Kwan and also MP Elizabeth May. There was also former MP Ferreri, who had a conflict in her agenda but who could be reinvited to appear. They did give me a sense that they would come if they were available when we invited them, so maybe a two-week window would allow them to schedule their appearance more easily. I did not ask them for May 26, though, because I wanted to hear what the committee’s instructions were before I proceeded.
Senator Batters: That maybe seems to make some sense then, rather than just having the one meeting and then leaving it — if there is a possibility of having it happen at the very next one.
Senator Busson: I don’t disagree with Senator Batters, but considering that, as you said, we have possibly five weeks left, and then, of course, in September, everyone wants to start with a fresh view, I would suggest that we get our teeth into the public bills issue and see if we can get some direction and resolve on that, so that in September folks can be able to get their heads around perhaps a new way of doing business. That would be my preference.
The Chair: Other views?
Senator Yussuff: Just in regard to the members of Parliament being available, my only suggestion would be to have a bit of a balance in regard to folks from different affiliations who would come to give a bit of a different perspective. I think it would be better for the committee to hear from that milieu of different parties’ approach to private members’ bills.
The Chair: I think the members were chosen because they are frequent users, if I can put it that way.
Senator Yussuff: I get that, but from one party, I don’t know if we’re going to hear . . . Also, on the private members’ bills, I recognize that this issue is going to take sometime for us to hopefully reach some degree of a consensus. I don’t know, with the time we have left, whether we are able to get to that place that we’ll feel we have done our work, but I just want to raise that.
The Chair: Yes. Clerk, you wanted to add a comment?
Ms. Ethier: For the MPs selected, I had invited MP Erskine-Smith, and he did not respond. So if there was agreement, I could approach him once again.
Senator Downe: He might have other priorities right now.
Senator Saint-Germain: I concur with my colleague Senator Busson. On Senate public bills, I suggest that we focus on the criteria and the processes. I may be naive, but from my standpoint, it is not that complex. With the needed consultations, I believe we could begin the work now and end it early in the fall.
The Chair: Other views? Hearing none, the suggestion might be to have one panel of MPs on e-petitions before we rise, and I will leave it to the clerk to determine whether or not the availability is as early as May 26 or whether they would prefer a week later.
In the meantime, I think it would be useful to have some discussion about how we would see the work plan on the Senate public bills go forward. There was a document distributed, and I would welcome suggestions or comments on the suggested witness list, at least as a beginning, and I would anticipate then at least one panel on May 26 on the issue of the Senate public bills.
I think it would be wise to begin with hearing from the respective clerks and whom they would wish to bring with them, say the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Clerk of the Senate, which would set the table for us. But there are also suggestions with respect to academics and procedural experts.
I would open the floor to comments with respect to the panel that you would like to see formed over the next two or three sessions, recognizing that we will keep one panel for the MPs involved in e-petitions.
Senator Batters: What was the potential witness list attached to? I don’t think I have that. I have two different Library of Parliament things, but neither of them seems to have a —
Ms. Ethier: The list of witnesses was circulated previously. I can have copies made for everyone.
Senator Batters: Yes, I don’t have anything in front of me.
Ms. Ethier: If you give me a few moments.
Senator Batters: Sure.
The Chair: I could just read it out.
Procedural experts from the Senate: Clerk Anwar, Maxime Fortin and Jodi Turner; procedural experts from the House of Commons: Eric Janse, Clerk of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons Procedural Services; academics: Charlie Feldman, whom we would know as a former law clerk here, and Louis Massicotte, retired professor of political science at Université Laval, who has done research in this area.
Then, there is a suggestion that we might invite some of the chairs or deputy chairs of committees that have a heavy Senate public bill workload — the Social Affairs Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee were suggested.
Of course, the floor is open for other suggestions, as well.
Senator Surette: What struck me the most when I read the background information on the private members’ bills was the subcommittee. When we’re talking about inviting these people, that’s part of the discussion, is it?
The Chair: That’s correct, yes. What are the processes that the House has in place to manage their flow? It’s important for us to understand how Senate public bills are, then, treated in the House of Commons. That would open up some creative thinking on our part as to whether there are models that we would wish to adapt. We might want to look at other jurisdictions, as well, and I am thinking of the House of Lords.
Senator K. Wells: Did we want to ask our Senate colleagues who are more — for lack of a better word — frequent users of Senate public bills to talk about their perspectives on why they feel that to be a useful mechanism?
The Chair: I think that’s a very good idea.
Senator Yussuff: I find it funny and serious at the same time because I don’t know where you start. Is it the most public bills that have been tabled — is that going to be the criterion? I could go through the list, but I’ll leave that to the —
Senator K. Wells: I have already done it.
Senator Yussuff: Okay.
Senator Batters: We should have some of our Senate colleagues, such as those who have been more prolific, shall we say, in the use of Senate public bills because they can also explain their perspectives. Sometimes, they have been successful in passing a bill in the Senate, but then it has gone nowhere in the House of Commons, so they can speak about that. And sometimes, they actually have passed it through the House of Commons, so they can talk about those perspectives.
Another aspect that is very different from the House of Commons is that the House of Commons has the lottery system. In the Senate, it is more of a — we should also get some perspective from senators who are or have been in leadership positions in the different groups. Certainly, in our group, we actually have a process where it often goes through a process with our House of Commons colleagues, as well, to make sure the bills being introduced in both the House of Commons and the Senate are as good as they can be before they get introduced and that there is support on both sides.
Something that has been the case for a while is that I’m not sure that other groups have that sort of a process. If they do have any kind of a process, I would like to know about it. That’s an important aspect of this rather than just hearing about the procedural part — finding out what comes beforehand. How do the groups decide what goes forward? Is there any process at all, or is it just everything goes?
The Chair: Good point.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I think it’s very important to understand the process and the order of priorities in the House of Commons.
With regard to what Senator Batters just mentioned, there is an aspect that needs to be examined, because some groups have their own processes, but there are times when senators change groups. So what would happen to the bills they introduced before joining a group? We could also try to sort out this puzzle.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’d like to come back to electronic petitions. I wonder if we aren’t confusing what’s essential with what’s secondary. If we were at the Agriculture Committee, I’d say we’re putting “the cart before the horse”.
The most important thing is to know the added value of the Senate compared to the House of Commons when it comes to the nature of these petitions. These petitions often call on the government to intervene. The briefing note is very clear on that. The House of Commons is well positioned to do so, and we must avoid setting up a system that will duplicate the work of the House of Commons.
First, we should define the Senate’s role. If we were to hear from a first witness, I think it should be the House of Commons’ Clerk of Petitions, who could explain the nature of the petitions they receive and how they certify them. It’s on the website, but I think it’s very important. That’s where the Senate’s added value could become clearer.
It seems to be taken for granted that the Senate would have to accept electronic petitions, without knowing exactly how the Senate could follow up on such petitions.
We need to proceed with caution when starting lengthy consultations, and instead begin with an initial stage of consultation on the relevance of this type of petition. If the conclusion is that it would be appropriate to proceed, then we can move further into the process and hear from additional witnesses.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: On that, I want to come back to private members’ bills.
I assume the data is available. We spend a lot of time on private members’ bills, both in the chamber and then at committee. Then, it goes to the other place, of course. The history of success has been spotty.
If we could find a way to tabulate the amount of time we spend on this, it will help educate us and also instill some degree of seriousness about why we need to think about this in a more serious way. When you think of the resources, both in terms of the clerks, the committee work, the hours we spend both in the chamber and at committee; then the bill goes there and dies — what does that say about the discipline that we should try to instill among colleagues about the process?
We are only one part of the equation; the House of Commons is the other part of the equation. It is also vice versa. They have similar experiences we could benefit from, where bills have gone through a very rigorous process over there; then, they come here and die because there is no carriage, support or what have you.
That information would be extremely helpful for us as we weigh in on this. For many of us, it’s anecdotal that we know what has happened, because we don’t keep track from Parliament to Parliament. If we go back over the last three Parliaments, it would be very instructive for us to know that information because it would help us in terms of where we might land as to what our recommendations and findings might be. We’d be better informed to also take it back to our respective groups to say, “Hey, here’s the data that exists. We should be aware of it.” We always argue about how much time committees have for the work of the Senate, but private members’ bills take an enormous part of that, including the chamber’s time, by the way, when we’re staying late at night and debating these things. As important as they are, we don’t seem to calculate the cost of what we’re doing in the context of the public perception of what we do here.
I’m only raising that; it is not to pass judgment. I just think it would inform us enormously.
The Chair: I will ask our analyst to respond with what work has been done or could be done in response to your excellent points.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: My colleague has collected a lot of data that you can find in two documents that have been provided to you. One of them indicates the final stage completed for Senate public bills. You will see that they do not all reach the final stage. The second set of statistics indicates the specific stages in terms of sitting times or meetings in committees. That’s one aspect.
The second aspect is to see what proportion of those Senate public bills reaches the House and becomes legislation, which is — I don’t have the numbers — still a low number. Part of it is internal processes because the parties on the other side have to take positions. Another part of it for the Senate public bills reaching the House would be an assessment made by a subcommittee of the House called the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or SMEM.
However, in general, from my experience from the last two or three years on SMEM, it’s very rare that a Senate public bill will be rejected at the criteria process at SMEM. It will continue its process through the work of the House. But at the House, then the dynamic of the parties, their positions will play a role in it. I don’t know if that answers all your elements, but that is some component of the question.
You have been provided with statistics. We are also currently looking at the limitation factors —
[Translation]
— factors that help limit the influx of bills in different jurisdictions.
[English]
So we are also looking at limiting factors which limit the process of the flow of bills. You have various models.
The Chair: Could this additional information be available by May 26?
Mr. Delisle: Yes.
The Chair: That would be helpful. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I see the listing. It’s for the last Parliament, all the different Senate public bills and listing all the stages. Maybe it would be helpful to compile the totals, but I just wanted to respond.
Senator Saint-Germain, I wanted to make sure that I understood the e-petition issue. I was listening through translation, so I may not have got everything correct. But we did actually, at the last meeting, have one of the clerk assistants who came to our committee and gave us some valuable information about e-petitions. I was just wondering if you wanted something additional for that, because we did have that as the first hour and then the Senate Administration people for the second hour. Was there something additional you wanted on e-petitions from the House of Commons, or was that — were you not aware of that?
Senator Saint-Germain: To answer simply, my point is that we could ask more questions directly to the clerk. I think it would be important. This is not about the data. It’s about the complementarity between both houses. I see it this way.
Just one point of clarification: I know that those charts are very well done, but, in addition to this, the Clerk of the Senate produced last year, over the last three Parliaments, the number of bills that passed at the House, and to what was said, there were very few of those bills. We can calculate from the last part of it, but it is information that is available at the Clerk’s office.
The Chair: If I could, just before I go back to the list, the point that you have raised with respect to e-petitions we will come back to when we come back to the subject of e-petitions with a potential panel. We’ll add the second point to the information that we’re requesting for the next meeting.
Senator Yussuff: On the point regarding the data, this is a good document, but maybe one additional thing — I don’t know if it’s possible. What this does not say — it talks about how many meetings — is how many hours we spent on it when it’s in committee and, to whatever degree we can calculate, when it’s in the chamber. It gives us a perspective. We have very limited time here when we come. Then, of course, we have limited time when we sit. There is a need to provide a good, healthy perspective for colleagues so we could have a better understanding of how we utilize our time when we are here.
If that’s possible, it would help me enormously in the work we are hoping to take on.
Mr. Delisle: We will get back to you on the possibility of providing those data because there are some limitations, and sometimes it requires manual calculations. So I cannot guarantee at this time.
The Chair: Even ballpark numbers would be helpful. It might not be to the minute, but it could be to the hour.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for all the amazing work you have done in gathering the numbers for us, but numbers, of course, as we know, only tell part of the story.
I was trying to see if we could have another dimension in terms of whether this is engaging Canadians in terms of democracy. If there is an issue that is very important, even though the bill doesn’t go anywhere, and it dies on the Order Paper, it is a role of the Senate to bring those marginalized voices forward. I don’t know how we’re going to ferret this out, but we may ask people who have done bills and what they felt it did to engage the often under-represented communities. That is one point if we have witnesses — I don’t have any witnesses, but I’m sure you will come up with something.
The other point was the issue of the inquiry, which I think all of us have been speaking to, or the previous speakers, in the importance of understanding the process, because out of this process, we kind of see how the sausage is made. It will be instructive for best practices as well. So I think that we’ll be able to get — we’ll be looking at those outcomes. Thank you.
Senator Downe: I support comments by my colleague. What we’re not able to measure is the role of senators in advancing public policy — to use an American expression, a bully pulpit. Issues are raised constantly, and they go to the House of Commons through these bills, and they are not accepted. Over time, the seeds are planted, and the government sometimes takes action based upon public awareness being raised by senators over time.
Occasionally, they introduce similar bills to what had been defeated years ago on a Senate public bill in the House of Commons because there is a growing groundswell of awareness and support for the initiative. I think the public bills, whether they pass right away in the House or they take many years to reach the end result that the senator wanted, they do serve a useful purpose. We can’t measure that, as my colleague said. For a host of reasons, issues are being raised.
The vote last week or two weeks ago on lowering the voting age to 16 has generated a discussion in the country about what we’re doing in Canada and what other countries are doing, and a lot of people are rethinking that issue that we weren’t even thinking about before. So they serve that purpose that, as I said, is impossible to measure.
On e-petitions, I’ll go back to what I said at the previous meeting. We don’t have constituents as such. I’m not sure; it seems to me like a duplication of an avenue available to Canadians in the House of Commons currently. In addition to the additional cost, I’m not quite sure it is the role of the Senate to get into e-petitions when anybody who wants to do one can now do one. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: On the point of ventilating ideas, I want to make the point that bills are not the only occasion or instrument that can lead to that. Inquiries could. Studies in committee could as well. The study of bills edges out the capacity of committees to do studies. I just make that point.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: We should be careful when analyzing the number of sitting days, because there are different factors to consider.
For example, a certain bill has been introduced in the Senate 13 times. It’s a reintroduction. Yes, it has been introduced 13 times, but 11 of those times were at first reading. Sometimes, we take up an idea from the House of Commons rather than introduce a new bill or initiative, so I think we need to try to take these criteria into account in the study.
I’d like to make another point. When I look at the table, I see that all bills that have received Royal Assent have an equivalent number of sittings in the Senate and the House of Commons. For example, a bill introduced by Senator Jaffer perfectly illustrates my point. There have been three readings and three sittings in the Senate, while there have been seven in the House of Commons.
We should try to determine why these bills move through the process so quickly. Was there a consensus? What steps were taken between the House of Commons and the Senate to move them forward? At that point, we could make concrete recommendations to senators regarding their choice of bills. Is this a new bill, or is it an idea taken from the House of Commons, meaning the process and thinking have already begun in the House of Commons? It might be useful to make concrete recommendations to senators.
[English]
The Chair: Can I put an idea on the table to respond to Senator Batters’ earlier comment about processes in groups and caucuses? It might be useful to have a panel of deputy leaders to reveal whether or not there are such procedures. It would be interesting to hear. I would suggest that a person from the Government Representative’s Office also be there.
I don’t know the present role, but I do know that in the Forty‑second Parliament, I sought the views of the government on Senate public bills and urged the government to have a view — for, against or without a view — and to say that in the House so there was awareness in the Senate of how at least the government views the bill under consideration. I’m not sure it had much effect, but it is an interesting question to ask because it did take a fair chunk of government time to determine whether or not they supported a bill or otherwise.
I put that on the floor as a possible panel early on to hear from those senators.
Senator K. Wells: Great. Just an information request or question.
What we’re talking about is the pathway of Senate bills in the Forty-fourth Parliament document. I wonder if we could also get that for the Forty-fifth Parliament, our current session, so we can see where things are at and do a little comparison between the two.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I can speak to why we didn’t do that.
The Chair: Please.
Ms. Virgint: The only reason we didn’t do it for the Forty‑fifth Parliament is because, as of the next day, that document would be out of date.
The process is obviously incomplete in the Forty‑fifth Parliament. We could still do it, but it would be out of date immediately upon distribution.
Senator K. Wells: That’s fine. We can track once we have the core information in front of us. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Yes, it would be helpful to have the Government Representative’s Office take part in that because, certainly, the government always does have a view on every single Senate public bill. It’s just that those who don’t sit in that caucus wouldn’t know what it is. Those who do sit in the caucus absolutely know and are usually part of the discussion on how that is arrived at. So, yes, I would be very curious to know what the current situation is.
Senator Yussuff: I want to go back again to the data. I want to go back to minority parliaments and majority parliaments. The longevity of having four years versus two and a half or three does give a different perspective. I know that’s a small point, but it is important, when you are working on a bill, how much time you have before the system kind of comes to an end. If there is an opportunity there to give us some perspective. I know we had one in 2015, but since then, it has been a minority parliament going forward.
Chair, I’m not sure if I heard a clear answer from you as to your inquiry to the government to make a pronouncement and what they actually said. Maybe I missed what you said.
The Chair: If you go back to the Forty-second Parliament, for most Senate public bills, I indicated at some point whether the government supported them or not. Sometimes, when the government didn’t have a view, I would say that just so it was known on the floor how the bill was viewed in a majority parliament by the other chamber. I think that’s important.
I would also point out that the tools available to the government to pass government bills are not available in the chamber for Senate public bills.
Senator Yussuff: Interesting.
The Chair: Nor should they be. Other comments?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I think our study should include alternatives to bills introduced by senators to influence public policy. The elephant in the room is the large number of senators’ bills that we have to study. Committees are at the point where they are no longer able to conduct studies that, very often, have an initial media impact and also help influence the government and members of the House of Commons. We don’t need to go back very far to find an example. The current parliamentary session has given rise to an outstanding study by our Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages on French-language health services across the country; this report has had an impact in the media and on the government.
Our committees conduct other studies. For example, the study on Africa by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which you’re a member of, also had an impact. I could go on. I apologize to the committees whose studies I don’t have time to name.
This point also needs to be made, because senators’ bills very often take a great deal of time and don’t receive Royal Assent. The time our committees take to conduct these studies comes at the expense of public policy review.
Senator Youance: I like that point.
I can benefit from the support of my team, which was already in place. Couldn’t bills based on analyses like these be brought forward? Senator Nolin had begun the study on the legalization of cannabis, which subsequently led to a bill.
Senator Saint-Germain: At that point, it was the government that prepared the bill, with the support of legal services and the expertise of the federal public service as a whole.
I have another point to make, if I may, Mr. Chair. Some senators’ bills lack the necessary structural quality or broader legislative impact, because senators don’t have adequate resources. For example, they do not benefit from the expertise of the Library of Parliament and don’t have access to analyses when reviewing bills. That’s another shortcoming that, I believe, should be raised in our report.
[English]
The Chair: In particular, constitutionality.
Senator Yussuff: Just on the issue of studies, I think one of the tremendous strengths of this place is the number of critical, important studies that evolve from committee work that help shape, to a large extent, public policy. In the Banking Committee, we spent a great deal of our time recently on the housing crisis, and we produced an excellent report. A good number of those recommendations are now in government policy. There is a bill coming from the House that is informed by different measures, taxes and fees that the government should consider on the affordability question around housing. It was timeliness, of course, like everything else.
Going back to a previous colleague who is not here, but the study on health care that was done before I was here — that certainly influenced —
The Chair: Mental health, especially. The Kirby committee.
Senator Yussuff: Mental health. The Kirby committee had a profound impact on the country, shining a light where it was needed. Of course, we can see the evolution today. I think, more often than not, that’s one of the areas where we get a lot of recognition for the good work we do, both in the media and generally from the public.
Senator Burey: I want to echo that to get on the record the importance of studies. That’s not to diminish the statement that I made before about how the numbers don’t tell the story. And, of course, the Kirby report is probably one of the reasons I am here in the Senate today because I saw him when he was going around the country talking about, especially, children’s mental health. That is absolutely essential.
The Agriculture and Forestry Committee report — I will put it on the record — the soil study — it has been 40 years since then. The Minister of Agriculture has already gone ahead and started working on the soil strategy, even though it has not been passed in the House.
The study on food security, which I was behind at the Agriculture Committee — the government copied us and has now said they will prepare a food security strategy. I can put a point on that. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Senator Downe: Of course, the number of studies that have an impact has declined in my time in the Senate because the Internal Economy Committee is refusing to fund many of them to travel across the country. My colleague just mentioned the Kirby report that went across Canada and having input, and she experienced that directly in her community. That no longer happens in many cases. People are in Ottawa trying to do Zoom meetings. You go back to the Kirby report. You go back to the Croll report on poverty, which you would remember, Chair, and the impact that had.
Unless we realign our resources to empower committees to do the reports that used to have a real impact — some still do; as you mentioned, the soil report from the Agriculture and Forestry Committee and others. We need that realignment. In the absence of that realignment, Senate public bills still have a role to play, particularly for marginalized groups, because the majority may determine what is going to be done in committees, and other voices are lost. That’s a way for individual senators — particularly non-aligned senators — to raise concerns that may have a groundswell of support among Canadians, and they may want the government to take action.
In my view, it’s a parallel track. But the role of committees certainly used to be the foundation of support that Canadians had for the Senate; less so now.
Senator Batters: Because it’s Mental Health Week, a very important week, I just wanted to clarify that former senator Michael Kirby — the report ended up kind of being named the Kirby report because he was the chair, but it was the Senate Social Affairs Committee that actually did that report. It wasn’t just one individual; it was that committee. It was a groundbreaking study. The Harper government at the time set up the Mental Health Commission of Canada because of that important work. I just wanted to clarify that.
At the Legal Committee, we have rarely had time for a study, usually throughout. We did have a significant period of time after the 2015 election because there was really no legislation coming to us for the longest time. So we actually took that time to do an 18-month study on criminal court delays, which was very important. We did a small bit of travelling on that committee at that point to see some places across the country and how they dealt with that important issue. But it is very rare for the Legal Committee to travel at all. We used to be able to do these shorter studies occasionally. We’ve really had a very difficult time even working a very short study — even a two- or three-meeting study — into our schedule. That is because of the absolute deluge of Senate public bills coming to our committee. It is really not for any other reason than that.
The Chair: That’s a very important point to make. On your point on Senator Kirby, Marjory LeBreton was the deputy chair. It was a unanimous report accepted by Prime Minister Harper, who then named Michael Kirby head of the commission, and he left the Senate to do that. That’s a full circle.
On the point that Senator Burey made about the Social Affairs Committee work, I only ask the question — it is along the lines of Senator Batters’ comment about the Legal Committee — the Social Affairs Committee is inundated with Senate public bills, so it couldn’t do the study or even travel if they could. These are points that need to be addressed in our deliberations.
Senator Yussuff: Similarly, on the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee, we did the Arctic study on sovereignty and how we can protect the Arctic. To a large extent, it has become government policy now, both in terms of the spending that they are doing and also in terms of recognizing it’s an area that, for the longest time, the country had neglected.
Coming back to Senator Downe’s point, we were allowed to travel. There was a significant cost to going to the Arctic. We had support to do that, broadly, because the committee members from all different groups were very supportive of the importance of that.
My point is that at the National Security Committee we have fewer private members’ bills. It is generally government legislation more often that we’re dealing with; then we are dealing with studies. So we would only have one or the other. Your point is well taken. There are not a lot of private members’ bills that end up with the committee.
The Chair: Colleagues, in terms of moving forward, do I have a consensus around beginning with a panel of the clerks of the respective groups and that we might consider academics? Certainly, Mr. Feldman is hardly entirely an academic. He is a “failed” counsel here, who is always entertaining on these subjects and informative. The panel with respect to the scroll participants would be another area. I also think we heard that it would be useful to hear a panel of “frequent flyers.” We could come forward with a suggested grouping of senators for that purpose.
We have suggestions with further material for our analysts to feed us. Given the comments, particularly the latter ones, we may want to have a panel hearing from the chairs and the deputy chairs of the Legal Committee and the Social Affairs Committee because they seem to be the ones caught with a large number of Senate public bills squeezing out other areas.
If it is agreeable, I think we could have those groupings brought forward at the next session with how that might unfold. But we certainly have the two panels to begin with on May 26, which would be the clerks of the respective chambers. Would that be a good way of moving forward? And then recognizing that we will find an opportunity, between now and the end of this term, for hearing from the MPs on e-petitions. We will come forward then with a proposal of our work, at which time we can take stock as to whether or not we have had sufficient information to at least begin to have a conversation.
The last point I would make is I know from talking with a number of senators that they have ideas on how we could proceed. It may not be at this point that people want to share those ideas, but at some point it might be useful just to have an ideas conversation, which could generate a document to be circulated by our analysts that would harvest some of the ideas around this table at some point, probably later in the month of May. If I could put that as a suggestion.
Senator Batters: The only thing is later in the month of May, there’s only one meeting now, at the end.
The Chair: That’s true.
Senator Batters: So it would be early June that I think you are speaking about.
The Chair: Right. I was trying to make it sound as though it was a long time.
Senator Saint-Germain: Chair, I generally agree with your plan. I’m wondering how we would find a balance between those frequent flyers and those senators who would see alternatives to be efficient other than with Senate public bills. Perhaps we can have a panel with this type of senators?
The Chair: That may be helpful. I would think it might be better to do it sequentially as we gain a stronger — it may be that, at some point, when we have an idea or at least a consensus around some of the tools, we might want to have another panel that is mixed, of frequent flyers and chairs or deputy chairs of committees, just to have their reactions to a suggestion that we might be moving toward.
Senator K. Wells: Piggybacking on that, it is important to hear — and maybe we’re inviting people back — the non‑affiliated senators and their perspectives, particularly on Senate public bills as another mechanism when you’re not sitting as part of a group.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: It will only be one pretty soon, just for statistics. Right? Anyway, we will cross that bridge when we cross that bridge. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I wanted to add to the points made by Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Wells: We should take the opportunity to revisit the other tools and to support non-affiliated senators.
At some point, do we want to compare the number of public bills from the Senate with that of the House of Commons? We have a table with figures, but do we want to include that comparison?
[English]
The Chair: I think that it can be part of the material.
Ms. Virgint: We can certainly do that. It might be a longer project simply because we have to count them manually. That data isn’t available. It might be a summer project, possibly.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Do we want to draw a comparison between the two processes in this study? That’s my question.
[English]
Mr. Delisle: We will assess to what extent we can produce these numbers. We will also provide you with, as I mentioned, the limiting factors that also play in the balance so you have a full scope of what is done and what could be done.
Senator Batters: I wanted to let Senator Youance know — maybe she is aware of this — that in the House of Commons, when MPs bring forward a private member’s bill, they have a lottery system. Their names are drawn out of a hat at the start of each Parliament. So an MP could introduce more than one bill, but their second and however many other bills will just sit and not even be introduced. They have to proceed with their lottery number of proceedings, so they only have one bill at a time. A number of senators have several bills, all of which they introduce at the beginning of a session. That’s the major difference.
Senator Yussuff: Maybe you can give us this information. Also, in the House, they can trade with each other in the same caucus to move up a bill sooner rather than later. That is unique in their system. We don’t have that here, but they do have it there because of the party system that governs.
The Chair: And the limitation system, too.
Senator Yussuff: Yes.
The Chair: I see no further hands. I take it then that the order of business might proceed in the fashion in which I’ve described, that our first meeting on May 26 will be as indicated and that we will move forward with the expectation that we hopefully can come to at least some sense of how we might wish to go forward before we rise, recognizing that we won’t likely conclude but at least can ventilate ideas for this subject area.
(The committee adjourned.)