THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 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 welcome senators as well as viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. I’m Peter Harder, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Senator Moodie is on her way, but I thought I would take advantage before she came to clear up a few things about our upcoming agenda so we have time to maximize the discussion with all of our witnesses.
I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, senator from Charlottetown.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette from Nova Scotia.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
The Chair: Colleagues, for next week, our clerk has confirmed the participation of Senators Miville-Dechêne and Tannas. They will appear on a panel together. Since there are only two senators, I suggest we cut the questions to 45 minutes to give time for a couple of other witnesses.
Senator Tannas has a proposal to bring to this committee. He may have his parliamentary advisor appear with him. I will leave that to him if that is okay with you.
Senator Carignan was invited but was not available. He spoke to me and indicated that he wishes to submit a written statement for our record.
Obviously, we will circulate that once it has been submitted.
Julie Wellington, the Senate’s Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, could appear on a separate panel. I would suggest 45 minutes again because there are issues from the Senate counsel that we have discussed and wish to have clarified.
I suggest that we spend the remaining time discussing what we might wish to ask of our analysts over the course of the summer in terms of specific aspects of the witnesses whom we have heard.
Is it agreed to proceed in that fashion: 45 minutes, 45 minutes and 30 minutes remaining for meeting amongst ourselves, although not necessarily in camera? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. I have another item. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from the Clerk of the Senate, Shaila Anwar. It states the following:
The Clerk is proposing to amend or delete rule 14-3 to better reflect current practices regarding the daily transmission of a copy of the Journals of the Senate to the Governor General.
Instead of considering this matter right away, I propose to write to the Clerk of the Senate on your behalf to ask if there are further issues in our Rules that she believes should be changed for the benefit of the Senate and if there are any errors, omissions or changes that could facilitate administrative processes in support of the Senate’s work.
In the fall, we would come back with her final list — if I could put it that way — as well as any other suggestions that could be a part of a single package.
Is it agreed to participate in that fashion?
Senator Downe: Chair, what is rule 14-3? What is the change?
The Chair: The rules indicate that a written copy ought to be delivered every day to the Governor General. A more efficient practice would be to deliver an electronic copy. We presently have a car and driver send this. At least it’s not a horse and buggy, but it does show the changing context of communication.
Senator Saint-Germain: Chair, I would like you to be very precise regarding the technical correction of these changes. I would suggest we state that there are no fundamental or substantial changes that we would like her to recommend to us. It is for this committee to address those issues.
The Chair: This is simply an administrative aspect. We do not want to go down a rabbit hole of extensive revisions, and there may not be any.
Colleagues, this is the panel with the chair and deputy chair of the two committees that deal with many of the Senate public bills. The committee felt it would be important to hear from the chairs and deputy chairs of these committees in respect of our study.
Two of the panellists are known to this committee for their participation in the work of this committee. We welcome Senators Arnot and Moodie as the chairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, respectively. Each will have an opportunity to make a statement. We will begin with Senator Arnot.
Hon. David M. Arnot, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: Thank you, Senator Harder, and thank you, colleagues, for inviting me and giving me this opportunity to have this discussion with you.
Colleagues, I would like to offer a few observations from the perspective of a chair of a committee that regularly finds itself managing some of the Senate’s most demanding legislative work. Let me begin by acknowledging I agree with much of the testimony that your committee has already heard.
Senate public bills are an important parliamentary tool which allows senators to raise emerging issues, represent minority and regional perspectives, and sometimes prompt government action where government action has been absent.
The issue before us is not whether Senate public bills should exist; the issue is whether the current process remains sustainable. The reality is that some committees experience this issue in very different manners than others.
Throughout my time in the Senate, I have served on committees that had the flexibility to undertake studies, hear from experts and move Senate public bills forward relatively easily.
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is not one of those. Our committee routinely studies Charter-sensitive legislation, criminal law reform, judicial matters, constitutional questions and bills responding to court deadlines.
Increasingly, we are also asked to accommodate government timelines and implementation schedules. These are not complaints; they are realities.
They lead me to a simple observation: Any reform that ignores a committee workload imbalance will fail in practice.
The burden of the Senate public bills does not fall equally across this institution. It falls disproportionately on committees such as the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
If we focus only on chamber procedures without addressing committee capacity, we will simply move the bottleneck from one stage of the process to another.
A second observation concerns legislative quality. Much has been said about ensuring that Senate public bills are “committee ready.” I would respectfully suggest that the “committee ready” standard is not enough. Bills should be of committee quality.
Government legislation arrives accompanied by charter statements, departmental analysis, gender-based analysis, legal review and extensive policy development by ministries of government. Senate public bills should increasingly aspire to a very high standard. I would even say the same standard.
Committees exist to scrutinize legislation; they should not routinely be asked to repair fundamental defects that could have been identified before the bill was introduced. No Senator enjoys telling a colleague that a bill may have constitutional deficiencies, jurisdictional problems, royal recommendation issues or drafting flaws. We often navigate those situations as respectfully as we can, but I do not believe we should. That should be cured at another place.
These are very serious matters. They are not simply policy disagreements; fundamentally, they are questions of law. If legislation seeks to change Canadian law, it should meet a high standard before it reaches the committee. That is not a barrier to Senate public bills; it is a way of respecting committee time, the Senate and Canadians.
Finally, I would note that much of the discussion has focused on limiting, prioritizing or screening bills. Very little attention has been paid to increasing Senate capacity. Perhaps we should be asking whether the Senate schedule should evolve to reflect the realities of a more active and independent institution. If Senate public bills are becoming a larger part of our work, then Monday or Friday sittings may deserve consideration by leadership.
Additional capacity may be as important as additional rules. We need a healthy balance between legislative review and policy development. I believe the fundamental problem is capacity. We need to expand capacity to meet the demand generated by an independent, less partisan Senate. This is a matter of institutional stewardship. The facilitators and leaders need to come to grips with this reality. Therein lies the focus and the cure, in my opinion.
Colleagues, our task is not to choose between government legislation and Senate public bills. Our task is to create a system that respects both: a system that recognizes the rights of senators, the responsibilities of committees and the need for good governance. If we achieve that balance, we will strengthen not only our committees but the Senate as an institution itself. When we have the time and the tools, the Senate has demonstrated great work — incredible work.
Canadians deserve that same high standard.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator.
Next we will hear from Senator Batters in her capacity as deputy chair.
Hon. Denise Batters, Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: Thank you and good morning senators. Thank you for inviting me to present with Senator Arnot on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
I have been a member of the Legal Committee for basically all the last 13 years: for the first three years, as a member of the Conservative government caucus and, for the last ten years, as a member of the Conservative opposition caucus.
I served for two years as a steering member of the Legal Committee, including during the committee’s significant 18‑month study on criminal court delays. I served for about two years as the committee’s deputy chair, during the study on then Bill C-14, the assisted suicide legislation, and again as deputy chair for the last two years. Throughout this time, I was a member of the national Conservative caucus.
We have seen a considerable change at Legal Committee with Senate public bills in the last several years. Yes, the committee still is — and has always been — a committee where lots of big, complex, contentious government bills are studied, but the number of Senate public bills has significantly increased in recent years. Even more crucially, the length of time it is taking to study many of these Senate public bills at Legal Committee has increased. Often, some of these bills have major changes made to them during Legal Committee clause by clause. Sometimes, the sponsoring senator removes major parts of these bills at this committee stage because they are problematic, not widely supported or both.
This is why the Legal Committee study and the clause-by-clause deliberations take so much time on this type of bill. In the last session of the Harper Conservative government, 34 Senate public bills were introduced. In the first session of the Trudeau Liberal government, there were 62 Senate public bills — almost double. This went up to 92 with the last Parliament that ended in early January 2025. This is a massive increase.
In the recent chart we were given by the Senate Clerk, for this session — less than one year old — we have already had almost 69 hours study of Senate public bills at Senate committees. The Legal Committee had the most: almost 32 hours, at two hours per meeting. That is the equivalent of 16 full meetings just on Senate public bills.
In the previous Parliament, which took place over a longer time span, the study of Senate public bills took almost 188 hours of Senate committee time, or 94 full two-hour meetings. The Legal Committee had by far the most: almost 62 hours, which is 31 two-hour meetings.
There is a prevalent view among many Senators that all bills deserve to be studied at committee. But do they? Often, the problems with some Senate public bills are evident by the time they are debated at second reading. We frequently know, at that point, that the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate Chamber in the end. Yet, second reading debate becomes nearly automatic, and almost all these bills are passed to committees for further study anyway.
By contrast, we see many private members’ bills in the House of Commons that are voted down at second reading and do not progress to committee study on the House side. In the last few months, the Liberal government voted down many quite widely supported Conservative private members’ bills from MPs. These are bills these MPs had to receive a relatively high lottery number to even present.
Here in the Senate, right now, every senator can introduce a Senate public bill at any time. The Senate Legal Committee gets its fair share of MPs’ private members’ bills to study. By the time these MP bills get to our committee, they are nearly at the very end of the parliamentary process and close to becoming law. These MP private members’ bills have generally not taken a lengthy time to study, probably because they have already gone through a caucus process, committee study and passed the House of Commons before coming to the Senate.
I don’t know what the internal Liberal caucus process is, but I’ve noted several times at this committee when I’ve spoken about these topics in questioning witnesses: The Conservatives have quite a considerable caucus advisory process prior to a Conservative private member’s bill or a Senate public bill being introduced. Again, I stress what a difference this makes regarding efficiency and streamlining this parliamentary process. This ensures the bill is as good as it can be at introduction, and it ensures good support at the outset.
As I’ve also said many times here, one of the many reasons Conservative senators are valuable members of our caucus and those advisory meetings is because of our significant corporate memory and the experience we can bring to this process. Again, I encourage you to consider what review procedures you could institute in your own groups and caucuses that would help make the Senate public bills process less onerous on everyone, including Senate committees.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now hear from Senator Moodie, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Hon. Rosemary Moodie, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology experience. Like Senator Batters, I have been sitting on the same committee since I joined the Senate, so I have the experience of seeing how things have evolved over the past eight years. I agree with Senator Arnot.
First, let me say that my discussion this morning will be abbreviated. We know a lot about this topic and the details of the statistics. I agree with Senator Arnot that Senate public bills are the right of all senators. All of our committees prioritize government business, as is the expectation. The challenge we have is in capacity, since we now have to deal with an increasing number of Senate public bills.
The prospect of this when I joined as chair was met with a letter to the leaders that many of you may be familiar with. In September 2025, we asked for their consideration to expand sending public bills to other committees like Social Affairs that have similar mandates. With that letter, we have seen a significant improvement in the redirection to the Human Rights Committee, which is now accepting bills, and that has considerably reduced our workload.
If you want to quickly run through what the past few years have been like, here are some numbers: In the Forty-second Parliament, we had 11 Senate public bills. Eight of them died on the Order Paper. In the Forty-third Parliament, in September 2020, we had four, of which three died on the paper. We saw a dramatic increase in the next Parliament: up to 10 and then 12 bills, of which many died on the Order Paper.
We are not doing badly now. We have three outstanding. We work as a committee to prioritize on a first-come, first-served basis. As soon as the Senate sits for that first sitting, folks table their bills, and they join a line. That is how we deal at Social Affairs with the bills.
We have recently set criteria and expectations around private members’ bills from the other place. We are leaning toward and are definitely accommodating those bills, as they are further along in the process when they come to us. We treat them separately. We have the right, as a committee, to manage Senate public bills the way we do, which is first-come, first-served.
I can tell you that senators all want theirs to be first and advocate aggressively. This year we had individuals who actually wrote letters through the committee clerk to ask for priority for their bills. We have been dealing with increased pressure from senators to make sure that their bills are prioritized. We take a fairly standard approach to this.
When government bills are in place or coming, we accommodate. We are accustomed at Social Affairs to dealing with a large volume of bills, and we are efficient at doing that. We get through the work, but that has always been to our disadvantage because the work keeps piling up.
This year we made a decision that we were going to put 60% of our time on studies when they were not government bills and 40% on Senate public bills, and we have been doing that. It has opened our new approach has opened up the opportunity to do committee studies.
In terms of process, right now, we have a first-come, first‑served process: As the Senate first sits, the table is inundated with Senate public bills. There are opportunities Senate-wide and not group-wide — because I do disagree with groups dealing with this at their level; I think that groups should not be dealing with it at their level, because it then becomes a question of the disparities across groups and sets certain groups at a disadvantage. So, this is a Senate-wide problem, and we need to be thinking about it at the point of intake.
For me, that means limiting the number of bills that can be tabled per month through the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, or COPO: first-come, first-served. If we have reached the maximum capacity, no more bills can be tabled. That is one way of doing it.
The lottery we have always talked about, which works very well on the House side, has never been taken on in this place because our numbers are not as large. Also, the ability to trade is not there because we senators are fewer in number. Therefore, there isn’t as much appetite for that, but a lottery is something that we could consider.
Beyond that, I believe that, once a bill is in the system, it should not suffer from trading or from being held back. Once a bill is in the system, it should pass through, go to committee if so desired, a decision should be made based on the analysis of that bill and it should be passed on to the other place.
I’m sure you are familiar with the outcomes of our bills in the other place: Of the 11 in our most recent session, only 3 passed and went to Royal Assent. So, we do not have a high success rate, but that is not for us to decide; that is for the constituents and parliamentarians who make these bills to address.
I agree that we can support senators in creating the best possible bills. There will be some innate issues around capacity, consultation, and so on. Those should be discouraging factors for senators who want to take on national-type bills that are better suited to governments.
But once senators have the appetite to do this, this is an inherent part of our business and is the right of senators; it shouldn’t be limited at our groups. It should be limited as a process issue, Senate-wide. With that, I will close.
The Chair: Before I call on Senator Burey as the deputy chair, I have been informed that some in attendance have taken photographs of the witnesses while we have been in session. This is the Rules Committee, and rule 14-7 prohibits such taking of photos. I would ask those who have done so to delete the photos and to respect the rules of this committee.
Hon. Sharon Burey, Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Good morning, chair and honourable colleagues of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. Thank you for the honour and opportunity to appear before your committee regarding your study on Senate public bills, specifically in my capacity as deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I am here to share various aspects related to the consideration of Senate public bills.
I will not go into all of these, as my colleagues have discussed some of them. One, I have some comments on workload considerations; two, how the steering committee sets the committee’s agenda — and I think Senator Moodie covered that — and three, recommendations regarding possible changes to the Rules of the Senate or current practices related to these bills.
Let me first thank the Library of Parliament, our committee clerk and staff for providing research and background material that has informed my comments today. I also extend my thanks to the clerk and analysts of this committee.
Colleagues, for context, I have been a member of the Social Affairs Committee for just over three years, and I have been a newly minted deputy chair and member of the steering committee for just over four months. I have also had the privilege of being a member of this esteemed committee since the beginning of the Forty-fifth Parliament and of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee for over three years. I am also on the HR subcommittee of CIBA.
Regarding the workload, I will just comment on the fact that, since this Parliament, we have done three government bills, no private members’ bills, one ongoing study on artificial intelligence, and five out of the nine Senate public bills have been passed through the committee process. However, this does not take into account the number of briefs and constituent meetings that are adjacent to and an essential part of our parliamentary role.
I will now go into my suggestions for consideration in our deliberations. Senators, as you know, in the Rules of the Senate, rule 10-2 states that a senator may, as of right, introduce a bill in the Senate. My comments are aimed at maintaining the rights of senators in the broadest sense and to continue the modernization of the Senate, a necessary and developmental process, as we strive for a more equitable and inclusive society that strengthens and sustains our democracy.
First, develop a series of educational seminars led by the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office and the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel — a “Senate public bills 101,” if you will. Is a bill votable in the context of processes noted in the other place without having to form such a committee? A series of checklists; for example, jurisdiction, constitutionality, appropriations, no similar bill in the same Parliament, et cetera. The Senate procedure and practice, and the 2024 edition of the comparison of the Rules of the Senate have set the stage for what can be done in terms of education.
Second, develop a series of educational seminars on inquiries and motions and how they can be used to advance issues of importance to Canadians.
Three — and Senator Moodie alluded to this — consider assigning cultural and heritage bills or other bills to committees that do not traditionally get as many bills; for example, send culture and heritage bills to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
In the event of a parliamentary change, whether due to prorogation or an election, consider the possibility of Senate public bills that have already gone through the thorough committee process and reported to the Senate to be reinstated without having to go through committee process again if the context and conditions, of course, are relevant. I will comment on that further if there is time.
Finally, on the issues of workload, Senate resources and capacity, use the institutional knowledge of the Senate to investigate how resources were garnered in the past to optimize the work of the committees.
In my preparation for this testimony, the Library of Parliament, or LOP, provided me with some limited information on this matter, noting that “there is no available comparative overview of how various committees or steering operate.”
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. We will now begin questions. As has been our practice, I would suggest we start with three minutes. That allows everybody to have the opportunity for a question, and we can always continue with a second round if time permits.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’ll ask my questions in French.
Thank you. Your four testimonies are quite helpful and complementary.
Since we began working on this topic, we’ve clearly established that a senator’s right to introduce Senate public bills isn’t in dispute. We’ve also clearly identified inefficiencies, or the lack of a process that would lead to greater efficiency.
My question for each of you is the following. Do you agree that, rather than implementing a lottery system as in the House of Commons, it might be useful for the Senate to limit itself to one active bill per senator on the agenda? In other words, as long as a senator’s bill hasn’t passed through the three stages in the Senate, the same senator couldn’t introduce another bill.
Do you think that each committee should be responsible for reviewing the basic admissibility criteria, including the constitutionality of a bill, particularly the respect for jurisdictions and the appropriation of public funds? If not, could we instead give this initial “filter” mandate to a subcommittee of this committee? These are my questions. Since there are four of you, could you please provide a brief answer?
[English]
Senator Arnot: I will go very quickly.
I don’t think a lottery system is reasonable: not in this case and not in the Senate.
I’m not sure a single bill is the best idea. There is a need to set up a subcommittee where this would be screened and all of these issues of quality of the bill be suggested to a senator. I know you can’t block it, but there’s a certain standard that you would require before it goes to committee.
Also, quickly, my main message today is that reform should, first, protect the right of senators to bring forward legislative initiatives, and I understand you agree with that; second, ensure legislation arrives at the committee with a high standard of readiness and quality; and third, recognize that committee workloads are not distributed evenly.
I respect the committee’s mandate, which is to amend rules, but I think there should be a recommendation to the leadership to really deal with the fundamental problem and its lack of capacity. In my opinion, if capacity were increased, some of these issues would diminish.
That’s my statement. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I am not in favour of a lottery for the Senate. I am less in favour of limiting to one bill each. I have been here for 13 years, and I haven’t put forward any bills. Maybe I have a great bill — or two at once — at some point, so I don’t think I should be limited because other people are putting five forward at once. There are many of us in that boat.
As far as each committee deciding constitutionality, I don’t think a lot of the committees are in any position to be able to decide those kinds of things. Putting even more on the Legal Committee would not be workable, as I have already described.
As far as a Senate-wide subcommittee, I will point again to the House of Commons subcommittee that they have, which stops almost no private members’ bills. I would say that’s largely because of the caucus process that each of those groups have in the House of Commons. That’s where a lot of these issues get resolved. I know a lot of these issues get resolved in the Conservative caucus, so my main thing would be to encourage the groups in the Senate to develop those types of processes internally.
Senator Moodie: I would agree with the first statements that everyone has said: a single bill, no. A subcommittee to define whether this is an appropriate bill and meet certain criteria is a big problem, and I don’t think committees can do that. Committees don’t have the expertise, but, most importantly, we are dealing with our colleagues and turning to a colleague and saying that we don’t approve of your bill. That is not something we want to place on senators — working in that environment.
More importantly, preparedness and quality will have to be a function of education, as my colleague pointed out. The examination of the bill in committee will hopefully unearth whether certain criteria are met.
I’ll tell you one thing that I found out: When we were seeking some information around constitutionality, I asked for the Senate lawyers to comment on a particular bill once, and I was told that that is not their role.
Senator Burey: Briefly, no lottery system. I am concerned about the limits. I really go back to education and knowing what is needed. We can do that.
Of course, during second reading, we all have a chance to vote down a bill so it doesn’t reach committee. At this stage, I would try education before forming a subcommittee to look at those checklists.
Senator Busson: I was going to ask a question about the subcommittee, but I think we have explored to exhaustion with regard to how you feel about that.
I’m interested in looking at this issue from the other direction. Not only do the lottery system and a system of limiting Senate public bills limit these bills, they also — talk to people in the other place — facilitate the passage of certain bills. We have data in front of us that many of our bills die on the Order Paper, don’t get the right amount of attention or fall by the wayside. Few of them ever get to a place where they make it through the Senate. The facilitation of the passage of these bills is something that we in this committee are also concerned about.
Could any or all of you comment on whether we should have a specific time during a sitting day or week specifically set aside for Senate public bills? Would that be an advantage to ensure that senators have the right to have their bills heard? In the other place, they do one hour per sitting day; we were told that is the rule of thumb in their work.
I would like to hear from each of you about whether you think that might be helpful or something we should consider.
Senator Moodie: Thank you for the question.
A specific time within the workweek is an excellent idea. I also think that limiting the number of bills that are passing through the system at any one time is critical — the load, the volume. That’s at the intake point, enabling a finite number of bills to pass through every month. Once we reach that capacity, that’s all that flows through; it flows through, and we don’t have impediments to it flowing through, but once you enter, it reaches some outcome.
Senator Burey: Predictability is very important as to the timing of second readings. As you know, senators get in line, but if it doesn’t come up, you might not be around and then you don’t know what’s happening. That could potentially help the committee to inform a work plan and workloads, and give other senators some more time to prepare for getting their witnesses, et cetera.
Predictability is a principle.
Senator Arnot: Anything that builds efficiency and doesn’t limit access is something we should try.
Senator Batters: The problem is not necessarily with Senate chamber time; we have plenty of that. There have been many times in the last few years when there have been minimal or no government bills at all, and some days when it’s only Senate public bills being discussed. The problem is not the Senate Chamber time. The problem, which I indicated in my opening remarks, is the time studying those Senate public bills at Senate committees and generally in certain Senate committees — the workload that is putting on.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Moodie, you mentioned that, at your committee, you have criteria in regard to private bills. Could you share those criteria with our committee?
Senator Moodie: Certainly; I can give you them. There are four or five.
The first is that it is a bill that has passed through the other house and has some kind of financial attachment or Royal Recommendation. That bill carries more weight in terms of the processes that accompany it when it gets to us.
The second is its importance to Canadians, which is a very subjective criterion.
Timing: Is there some kind of urgency around the timing of a bill? For example, is a particularly important date coming up, such as a memorial of a particular event that somehow guided the bill?
Those were the three big ones. We also looked at whether, in the context of our work, we had any government bills. Was there access to flow through this and move it quickly? The size of the bill and the complexity of the bill.
Senator Ringuette: I’ve seen Senate private bills linger at second reading for two years on the Order Paper. On the one hand, we can say that we don’t want to remove the rights — and I agree with that — but isn’t that really what we are doing in delaying the process? Isn’t that what we are doing technically — or for some, maybe it’s politically — in delaying bills at second reading?
Then we become clogged down in one week because of negotiating and so forth. But is it fair to negotiate one bill moving forward and not another for the senators involved?
What would be fair? I ask all of you.
Senator Ringuette: Do you think that we should have a certain time frame, not necessarily the same one that they have in the House of Commons, but at least, a certain time frame, notwithstanding that specific criteria should be introduced to guide the Senate?
In regard to fairness, timing and Senate private members’ bills, can you quickly respond to my comment?
Senator Arnot: Maybe, yes. That’s it.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Moodie, you are suggesting that we limit the tabling of bills to a certain number per month. How would that work? There might be some senators who come and say that the limit is five. One senator might come and say, okay, I’m going to table three bills. How will that process work? Would that mean that we limit a senator on how many bills they can table per month?
Senator Moodie: That will all be defined on the criteria of how we propose a bill at the table, but that’s something that can be decided.
You can table one bill at a time. Let’s say, five per month. When we reach a capacity of five, future bills that senators attempt to table are declined. When it comes to the next month, the gates open up again, and so on.
My comment to you about this is with regard to the flow through. Once you get into the system, you must proceed, and you must proceed in an even fashion and come to completion. That’s the fairness issue.
Senator Batters: I personally have quite a problem with that because it could be a situation where people flood in with bills that may have been unsuccessful in other parliaments because they are already ready, and just because they have gone through a process to a certain level doesn’t necessarily mean that the bill has had success. Maybe it stopped at a certain level because the recognition was that it did not have success, and the fact that there could be new senators or senators that have been approached by MPs who have been very low down in the lottery number system, who want to have their issue perhaps brought forward. That has been something that people in our caucus have done occasionally over the years. So I would not be in favour of that type of limitation.
Senator Yussuff: I appreciate the experience of the two committees because you have the bulk of the bills that come through as private members’ bills — both Legal and Social affairs. I’m not sure we arrived at a solution about how to limit or fix your workload. Senator Moodie, you alluded to the fact that the committee determined that studies are equally important for the committee’s work, and you have to figure out the balance.
The dilemma that both Legal and Social Affairs face is unique to the Senate because it’s a place where all the bills end up at the end of the day, given the character and content of the suggestions that people are putting forward about what they want to have in legislation.
The bigger challenge we have here is how much time we spend in this place and how we try to manage that. We can’t look at this issue simply from a Senate perspective of just private members’ bills because, in the work of the Senate, government legislation is a priority. There is work of committee in terms of studies that quite often are looking at big, important issues and want to figure out how they can advise the government. Then, in the mix, are private members’ bills, and maybe we have to look at how much time we allocate to private members’ bills in the Senate as a whole, as a fairness issue, and then figure out among the groups how to manage that.
If we try to limit how much work will be sent to Social Affairs and Legal, we end up exactly here because we don’t control how many bills people will table. They end up in these two committees, which is the challenge we have been faced with.
Thank you for all you have proposed, but I don’t think we have come to a solution.
The last point I would make, Senators Arnot and Moodie, is that the screening of bills requires technical and legal knowledge, and unless we get some assistance to help us, it’s a real problem. I will use myself as an example. As I was tabling a private member’s bill on an issue, it took longer than I expected because of the back-and-forth research in understanding the complexity of the issue and how you would draft a bill that would avoid some of the pitfalls inherent in putting forward a private member’s bill, and really using the services of the Library of Parliament to get advice and to scrutinize that and return it many times over for them to provide additional advice and, similarly, the redrafting of the bill.
In the absence of that avenue for getting assistance, I don’t know what other avenue exists for senators to get that assistance in a real way that would avoid the pitfalls relating to constitutional and jurisdictional issues. It is going to cost the government some money.
These are real problems that bills will run into, and we don’t get the expertise unless you are getting some advice from somebody else that could help this.
Senator Moodie: This is the situation Social Affairs met with. When we needed legal help, we reached out to our legal department and said that we wanted to understand this particular question. We were told that they are serving the senator, and the senator only, in that process. The senator receives legal and constitutional advice, et cetera, from legal counsel. When we, the committee, reach out and say, we want support to understand the issues, they say, you are not our client. We are not answering you. Get a constitutional lawyer for your testimony.
Senator Arnot: This problem was created by the modern Senate after 2015, as far as I’m concerned. That change had some unexpected consequences, but it also had some consequences which were reasonably foreseeable, in my opinion.
The biggest problem is this idea of capacity. I keep coming back to that. The legislative demand has grown, and legislative capacity in the Senate hasn’t.
Committee resources, meeting opportunities and institutional processes haven’t evolved at the same pace. The result is an increasing pressure on these small committees.
Senator Yussuff, you are talking about capacity. I go back to this idea: You have the ability to dictate the mandate of a subcommittee, which would look at these bills. In populating that committee, senators with a lot of experience would be really helpful to any senator with a Senate public bill. Legal expertise is required, for sure, constitutionally. If it isn’t coming from legal services, it has to come from some other place. That’s resources and capacity.
All those factors could be handled by a subcommittee with a proper mandate. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: My question is for Senator Batters.
You spoke about a dramatic increase in the number of Senate public bills and the analysis process within your caucus. Could you elaborate on this? How could this initial analysis help or does it help reduce the number of bills? What resources are being used? How do you decide which committees will analyze the bill?
[English]
Senator Batters: Thanks for the question. Yes, we have developed, over a number of years, a committee process — or an advisory council process, I should say — with our caucus, and that involves MPs and senators in the Conservative caucus. That existed when we were in government and also now that we have been in opposition.
If it’s our own members’ bills, members are encouraged to bring forward the bills prior to being introduced, even the concept of them, so their colleagues, some of whom have a lot of experience, can help them with some of the major issues that might develop. The members may have a concept or they may have already drafted a bill, but they proceed in that fashion to ensure that there’s widespread support in our own group.
If you don’t already have widespread support in your own group, then you should really question whether your bill will have widespread support in the wider institution, the Senate or the House of Commons, that you’re trying to put it forward in.
We also look at bills that have been proposed by other MPs and senators that we obviously don’t know about before they are introduced. After they are introduced, then we go through those as well in those advisory councils at our caucus meetings and have detailed discussions about how bills can be made better.
That’s one major factor we can use to limit bills and ensure those that either don’t have widespread support or potentially have some considerable issues early on — whether that’s a Royal Recommendation issue or a constitutional issue or a jurisdiction issue — and other factors are considered before tabling. That’s how we have been effective over the years in having a number of bills improved before they even come into the process to begin with.
Senator Surette: There seems to be consensus, or very close to consensus, on the challenges, which are the rights of senators, committee capacity and the quality of bills that are presented. There seems to be less consensus on the solutions or on what we should be doing, which is what the committee will have to address later on, whether it’s limiting the number of bills, implementing a lottery, and so on.
Nobody mentioned the scroll meetings and if there is a role here for our scroll leaders and our caucus and group leaders. I’m curious about your thoughts on that process and if that can be another option.
The Chair: Senator Surette is predicting our next panel and wants your reaction.
Senator Moodie: There would be an issue with scrolls being the place where that kind of decision is made because the leaders define what scrolls essentially follow. I’m not sure how effective that could be.
That’s really a negotiation about if and how those bills appear that day.
Senator Arnot: I don’t really have much to say about scrolls, but I would say that if something works, look at what works. Senator Batters has talked about a method that works. It’s an advisory group. Maybe a subcommittee would be more framed with that kind of a mandate, not to screen, but to give advice and to build up.
Senator Batters: I’m waiting for the next panel to hear about scrolls. I have not sat on scroll before, so I’m anxious to hear how they deal with these kinds of issues there.
Senator Burey: I agree with Senator Arnot about bills being vetted through either education or a formal committee to have that process started.
Senator K. Wells: First, thank you all for being here. It’s great to learn from our colleagues and the tremendous experience you all bring to the work.
I like the idea of the bill school. That’s always helpful, particularly for new senators, to have that on a regular basis. Certainly, perspectives like yours would be important for others to learn from as part of that bill school. There’s nothing better than the mentorship of your colleagues to really help you along the way. Thank you for that.
I have a question for committee chairs: We know that perhaps all Senate public bills are not created equally. Some may have one line. Some may have many pages of complex changes being proposed. I’m wondering about insights on how you manage how much time is allocated to the study of a Senate public bill. That’s an important consideration when we’re thinking of limiting bills. We may not need to limit depending on the kind of the bill and the time it would take, for example, at the committee level to still give a rigorous study to the bill.
Senator Arnot: I’ll go quickly. In my experience, recently, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs dealt with two very complicated bills. We had numerous panels and lots of advice. There were lots of recommended amendments and lots of observations. We dealt with it the same way we would be dealing with a government bill.
Senator Moodie: There is a standard approach to how we frame bills based on how complex they are. We take guidance from our clerks and the Library of Parliament, and we approach it with that in mind. We also take a little bit of licence. When we see things coming down the tube, we start planning, and we make a decision as to where this might land and how it would look.
We do change the face of a bill and the time spent based on recommendations from our colleagues, and we are pushing the limit now. Certainly, in Social Affairs, we are pushing the limit.
Senator Batters: I can think of four different bills that we had in the last two or three years at Legal Committee, where they started out very complex and lengthy, and they ended up not. They ended up considerably amended down by their sponsoring senator, and that was because they were found to either have problems in those parts or certain parts were not widely supported, so the sponsors voluntarily took out those parts.
It probably would have been better if they had done that prior to introducing the bill to begin with.
Senator Burey: Depending on the type of the bill — heritage, culture or public policy bill — days are allotted for committee study and clause by clause. For example, a heritage bill would have one to two days of witnesses and a clause by clause. For a public policy bill, there would be three to four days with two panels and three to four witnesses and one to two days of clause by clause, especially if amendments are anticipated.
However, some bills, due to their complexity, due diligence and sober second thought exercised by committee members, may take longer.
The Chair: Panel, thank you very much for your contribution to this study.
I wish to welcome the members of scroll. For our listening audience, the members of scroll are usually the deputy leaders of our groups and caucuses, who meet daily to discuss and provide information with respect to the agenda before the Senate. I’m grateful for the scroll to join us today. We will give each of them an opportunity to make a statement, followed by questions.
Colleagues, there are five senators on the panel. A three‑minute question provides little time for them to respond. I would be grateful if you would pose your question to a specific senator or at least frame your question in less than three minutes.
Hon. Joan Kingston, Deputy Facilitator, Independent Senators Group: Thank you. It is probably a good thing, since I am new to the scrolls process; I bring that perspective. That is what I like to think.
I wish to talk today about the role of scrolls, the processing of other business, how the debate ends and the question is put and internal things about the ISG in particular.
Thank you, chair and honourable senators of the committee, for having me here today. I would like to begin by commending the committee for undertaking this careful review. I am particularly appreciative of your decision to hear directly from those with practical experience at the scroll meeting.
During the scroll meeting, a representative from each group indicates which of their colleagues will be speaking to the items listed on the Order Paper, as you may know. One of the Senate’s fundamental operating principles is that consideration of a piece of legislation at a particular stage is not complete until debate has run its course. In practice, this means the Senate usually proceeds to a vote only once debate is exhausted and no senators remain who wish to speak. This is key to how the Senate and the scroll process operate.
It is my understanding that, as far as other business legislation is concerned in the other place, there is a mechanism for automatic exhaustion of debate through standing orders. No such mechanism exists in the Senate; instead, scroll helps to fill that role.
One way to understand this is that the discussion at scroll is a way for the Senate to explore whether debate is, indeed, exhausted. If there are further speakers interested in debate, then the items either stand or the item is adjourned to another sitting day.
As you saw last week, in the testimony from our colleagues, this process can take a considerable amount of time. You have also heard how the current rules can create conditions for delay and even arguments that could be a de facto veto. Bills can and do languish on the Order Paper for months. In the absence of a mechanism for automatic exhaustion of debate, repeated adjournments can allow for a strategic delay of a given piece of legislation.
I would like to note that, as the committee considers its study, there are other procedural tools that play a part in exhausting debate, such as motion amendments and subamendments; all create new debates, each of which must be exhausted before the item can proceed to a vote.
I note that some of the committee’s discussions focused on internal group processes rather than Senate-wide ones. I would like to say a few words about the ISG approach in that context.
All legislation is considered by ISG members on an individual basis. There is no group position on items on the Order Paper, although colleagues do explain their positions to other group members.
ISG senators individually adhere to the principles of the ISG Charter, which affirms their right and duty to act independently and in a non-partisan manner according to their own judgment, values and freedom of conscience. While there has been extensive dialogue over time and ongoing interest in exploring how the Senate of Canada considers public bills, our discussion increasingly points towards a Senate-wide equitable and pragmatic approach as the preferred path forward.
In conclusion, the ISG welcomes this committee’s examination of the issue. We view this work as an important opportunity to better understand how current Senate practices are operating and can be improved. We look forward to reviewing the committee’s findings and recommendations.
Thank you.
The Honourable Senator Yonah Martin, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today at the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
It is a privilege to contribute to the committee’s study on the consideration of Senate public bills, the role and the discussion at scroll and the management of Senate business.
I appear before you having served in Senate leadership for more than a decade, both as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and as Deputy Leader of the Opposition since 2015. During this time, I have participated in countless discussions at scroll regarding the management of Senate business, the scheduling of legislation and the ongoing effort to balance the many competing priorities before the chamber. Those experiences have reinforced my appreciation of the importance of our Senate rules, traditions and parliamentary practices in supporting the effective functioning of the Senate.
At the outset, I believe it is important to recognize that the Senate’s procedures and practices are rooted in the Westminster parliamentary tradition and long-standing parliamentary conventions. These traditions, together with the Rules of the Senate, form the foundation of our work and uphold the fundamental principles of fairness, transparency and accountability. They also recognize the vital role of the opposition in holding the government to account.
I did not always appreciate it when we were in government, but it was a very good and effective opposition that I had. I learned a lot about my role as Deputy Leader of the Government, the challenging proposals and ensuring that legislation receives rigorous scrutiny before it is adopted. These principles enable senators to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to provide sober second thought to legislation, represent regional and minority interests and contribute to the careful examination of public policy within Canada’s parliamentary democracy.
Concerns regarding Senate public bills have emerged over the past five years, as their number has increased significantly, creating additional pressures on both the Senate and the House of Commons.
Within our caucus, we have long maintained a process when a senator wishes to introduce a bill. As members of the national Conservative Party of Canada, we are accountable not only to the Senate, but also to our national caucus and House colleagues, our members and constituents across Canada. We must ensure that appropriate due diligence has been followed, that stakeholders and legal counsel have been consulted and that the proposed bill has been discussed through our caucus advisory processes prior to the introduction of the bill.
Senators of our Conservative caucus wishing to introduce a bill are expected to present it to our Senate caucus prior to the tabling of the bill. We have these discussions at our caucus level.
We must ensure that the bill falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the Senate, does not constitute a money bill and is otherwise constitutionally sound. These safeguards are important and should be preserved because they contribute directly to the quality of legislation and reinforce the Senate’s role as a chamber of sober second thought.
You have heard about the discussions we have at scroll. We just all came from scroll. We’re cognizant of the members of our caucus or group as we discuss the Orders of the Day for that day. We know that there are things that are coming, and we sometimes look at what is expected for the week, because we meet daily but meet once with our caucus or group.
The discussions at scroll can be lengthy. Sometimes we meet separately as the deputy leaders or facilitators. We have a group chat.
The key is definitely communication within our group that meets at scroll and, again, at caucus and group meetings. COPO sends us their notes, and we send our own notes, so it is all about communication, in my opinion.
I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to be able to work with them. We have these discussions on an ongoing basis throughout the day. I won’t go into those details about what we do at scroll. You may already know, and you may discuss that with us through your questions.
Over the years, scroll discussions have demonstrated that many improvements can be achieved without formal rule changes. As Deputy Leader of the Government, I worked closely with independent senators — we are all independent, but non-affiliated senators, at the time — and they were aware of business before the Senate each day, including about special procedural motions that would require leave.
We all know the power of “no;” it only takes one senator to deny leave. That is a very important procedural rule and practice: that every person must consent to leave.
The strength of the Senate lies not only in legislation it adopts but also in the integrity of the processes through which those decisions are reached. Preserving that integrity should remain at the heart of any discussion about reform.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate: Thank you, chair, and thank you, everyone, for having me here today, and the scroll team, which I am honoured to work with every day. We spoke about it, but we truly believe we’re one of the most effective committees in the Senate, and we work very hard for all of our colleagues.
To be clear about my focus at scroll, it is to facilitate the meeting, to give notice of procedural motions and documents to be tabled, to share the government’s and the GRO’s intention regarding the order of government business, GRO interventions and the timing of government legislation, and to collect information from our colleagues regarding the intention of other senators to intervene on government bills and to call the question on government legislation. That’s my job.
As such, the Government Representative’s Office focuses primarily on advancing government legislation, while the other deputy leaders structure the debate on public bills.
That is all I had to offer today because our focus is the GRO, which sends me to scrolls to focus on government legislation. In fact, in the past, when we’ve had discussions specifically about Senate public bills, Senator Martin facilitates that part of the discussion. I don’t facilitate that. I’m happy to work with Senator Martin. She takes over that piece. Those discussions ensue. Thank you.
Hon. Robert Black, Deputy Leader, Canadian Senators Group: Thank you, chair. It is a pleasure to be here again this morning.
I wish to begin by saying that I always recommend to my CSG colleagues that they should join me on scrolls to see what happens. As someone who stepped into the role of deputy leader of the Canadian Senators Group earlier this year, I can attest that scroll is an exceptional opportunity to learn more about parliamentary procedure and processes.
Each morning of a sitting, deputy leaders or their equivalents meet to review the day’s Order Paper. During these meetings, we are supported by Clerk Assistant Maxime Fortin, from whom I understand you heard earlier in the committee meetings.
I won’t go into many details about what specifically happens at scroll. You’ve heard some of it, as Maxime and the rest of the panel have provided this information, or will be providing this information already. I do welcome your questions.
However, I do think it is important to reiterate what I told the committee last week.
In CSG, Senate bills are not vetted through any process. Lobbying on the merits of any legislation is done outside of our group meetings and is in a similar fashion to what one would do when lobbying for the support of all other senators in other parliamentary groups or caucuses. We respect each other’s independence within our group.
In scroll meetings, I relay information that I receive from my CSG colleagues informing COPO and other parliamentary groups and caucuses of our individual CSG senators’ intentions, confirm sponsors and critic positions within CSG, speaking intentions and advise whether our group is ready for questions.
I often have to bring the question about bringing a question back to our group. I also take similar questions raised during the scroll back to my CSG colleagues, and we discuss it there.
I can’t speak for our leader, Senator Osler, or to what is discussed between leaders. But I am aware that they do not speak to Senate public bill management during their meetings.
Colleagues, before I wrap up, I want to add a thought that I had after I appeared last week, and that is to say that the Senate’s core constitutional purpose is to provide sober second thought and independent oversight on legislation. We were appointed to study, review and provide recommendations and not necessarily to create or dictate government policy direction. I know that we do that, and this, again, is an area of contention for some of my colleagues, but that is a discussion for another day.
We must use our voices as senators to support our regions and our country by raising and addressing issues not currently on the government’s radar and to study, review and provide sober second thought.
Thanks for the opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you.
Hon. Judy A. White, Deputy Leader, Progressive Senate Group: Thank you. I get to recap everything that has already been said.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here today. I have served as the deputy leader of the PSG since February 2024.
I will give a short overview of scrolls, recapping what my colleagues have already indicated, and then I will touch briefly on how PSG deals with Senate public bills.
Basically, our whole raison d’être at scrolls is managing the Senate agenda. As indicated, we help organize government bills, motions and debate timing. We coordinate with the liaisons to manage voting, look at the timing of the bells — if there are such bells — and to ensure the attendance of senators.
A lot of time at scrolls — at our discussions — albeit informal, goes to debate lengths, committee referrals and the timing of the vote. It is a very cordial, collegial and cooperative group. I cannot think of any more “C” words that I could use. It is a collaborative group, and one that I’m honoured and proud to be a part of and participate in. I’ve learned so much at scrolls.
Again, as Senator Black has indicated, I stress that everyone should join. That’s not to say that we couldn’t do it without COPO. Their assistance and direction are absolutely vital. I wish to indicate that.
I want to take a minute to talk about Senate public bills at PSG. With respect to Senate public bills, the PSG does not have a formal internal process for governing how such bills are introduced or even managed. When a senator within our group wishes to bring forward a Senate public bill, they do so.
I want to highlight that it goes to the independence of the group where we actually have had, in PSG, both the sponsor and a critic on a bill on one piece of legislation, for example, a private member’s bill that was concerning supply management. This reflects the degree of individual autonomy that is within our group, and that distinguishes us in terms of our independence.
I will stop now. I am pleased to take any questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, panel.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you. It is very interesting and informative, so I appreciate each one of your testimonies.
Regarding Senate public bills, it is for the House of Commons to give sober second thought to these bills. We have questioned many senators proposing that one senator be able to table only one Senate public bill as long as this bill is active on the Order Paper, having a subcommittee of this committee or each committee filtering with some basic criteria, perhaps having some time in the chamber and in committee that would be reserved for Senate public bills. When thinking of the scroll meeting and knowing that we may have more capacity, we may have more Senate public bills if we do nothing, more of them that will die on the Order Paper, what you would suggest as members of the scrolls of this institution in order for these bills to proceed faster yet still professionally in the chamber so that fewer are referred to the House and die on the Order Paper?
Senator Martin: Thank you, senator. I did read the transcript of previous committee meetings. I know this has been discussed. From my point of view, the rights of each senator should be protected where possible.
While limiting senators to one bill does seem like an efficient way of going forward, I would hesitate to take away the rights of each senator. I talked in my opening remarks about communication and processes. I know that, in our Senate caucus, we have very few Senate public bills overall. That is because we understand what is happening in the House and what happens when our bills are sent to them.
As the Senate, we are the voice of the minority. We go where the gaps are. We can have those conversations at the group and caucus level to look at what bills should come forward. You can have that discussion within your own group or caucus, and it doesn’t take away from the independence of that senator wanting to propose an issue.
Again, by the time my first and only Senate public bill was adopted after four and a half years, it was after I had spent years consulting legal counsel at the Senate and talking to the minister of the day. Now, I would consult with the shadow minister, whose preoccupation is to focus on that specific ministry. I would suggest additional conversations and establishing a process within the groups.
As I say, with our Senate caucus, we have a system. We would be happy to share that. I understand that you are not part of national caucuses, but there is an effort to ensure that what we’re putting forward is what we all can support. By doing that, I feel that we will reduce the overall number of Senate public bills.
Senator Batters: Senator LaBoucane-Benson, I am interested to know this: How do you find out what the government’s position is on a Senate public bill? Do you and your Government Representative’s Office, or GRO, colleagues make a recommendation to the government about this? Does the government consider each Senate public bill and let you know what the position of the government is, and does the government consider that at cabinet, caucus or both? How does that work?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: We do not make recommendations. We ask what the government’s position is. We receive that from the office of the minister who would correspond with that bill. Whether they discuss it at cabinet, I have no idea, but they provide us the government’s position on the bill.
Senator Batters: It is not your routine to provide a recommendation?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: No.
Senator Batters: Do you share the government’s position on Senate public bills at scroll if asked? Do you disclose at scroll whether someone at government will speak to a Senate public bill in the chamber and do you have input in any way from the government as to which committee a Senate public bill would go?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I will be as transparent as I can be at scrolls. I think the reason we work so well together is because we provide as much transparency from our groups as we can at scrolls. It makes all senators’ experience of the chamber very different. The more transparent we are, the better it is.
What was your last question?
Senator Batters: Do you have a discussion about which committee a bill would go to? Does the government have input on that at scroll or elsewhere?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I cannot think of a time that we have. It is something that groups decide as a general discussion. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ever, but we have never actually entered into that conversation because all groups talk about it.
Senator Batters: Is that discussed at leaders’ meetings?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: You would have to ask the leaders.
Senator Batters: Do you not attend if Senator Moreau is unavailable?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I have, but I do not talk about Senate public bills when I am there. I give my information and get out of town.
Senator Batters: You’re saying that if you do know it, you would share at scroll whether Senator Moreau or others from your group would speak on a Senate public bill. Is that correct?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Absolutely, we would share that information if I know at scroll. Sometimes, that decision happens after, and our staff will inform the staff of my colleagues that he is going to speak.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you all for being here.
All five of you have a consistent theme, and that is time. You all are discussing time, delays, procedures and management of Senate business. The central issue that I hear from your group at scroll is that there is a need for time management in regard to private bills.
I understand, Senator LaBoucane-Benson, in regard to government bills, you have the tools, for example, the leaders’ discussions and agreements, and you also have the possibility of time limits and government motions. In regard to government bills, the timing is being dealt with.
How can we deal with the timing and management of private bills?
Senator Black: We talked last week about putting time limits on Senate public bills, similar to what happens in the other place. In my mind, that’s an option that could be looked at — whether that is two or three hours, or whatever.
The other piece I wanted to point out is meeting Monday evenings or Wednesdays late in the afternoon. I know that impinges on other committees and things, but that would allow for specific discussion time.
Senator Martin: Time is always of the essence, but in the Senate, we have the tools for government legislation. At this time in the Senate, the Conservative opposition is a small minority. However, I recall when we were in government, we were a minority government caucus and there were more in the opposition. Since we had the tools for government legislation as the government caucus, we could exercise that and allocate time. We had a responsible opposition. You were part of that. You were excellent in your interventions, as you are.
With other business, I do believe that it is in the “other” category for a reason. If it were a majority government that could allocate time and control what happens to government business, potentially that same majority could dictate what happens in other business, but that’s not the case. I believe, regarding other business and the Senate public bills, it is the right of every senator, and it will take time. But if they are good bills, we can appeal to our colleagues. We have seen many bills expedited. We have agreed.
Does that mean that the rest of the public bills right now do not deserve that same kind of attention? We know that if we were to flood the house with all our bills, that too would not be well received.
There’s the built-in responsibility with what we already have. We have a lot of Senate public bills. We understand that, maybe at the group level, there could be discussions about how to at least limit them to a certain extent without limiting the rights of each senator.
Yes, this is a very difficult conversation, but now that I’m in opposition, I understand why the rules serve the minority in many instances. I hope all of us can think about being in “opposition,” so to speak, whether it’s government or opposition, or a larger group versus a smaller group, and that we keep that in mind as we go forward with any reforms to the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Downe: Colleagues, as you know, the House of Commons has rules and a structure for their bills that the MPs follow. My sense is that we are in some urgency here because of the impact that the increasing volume of our bills is having on MPs. We have no rules around bills, other than the Conservative caucus, which has the feedback loop and the screening they go through.
As Senator Arnot said in the previous panel, it’s one of the unintended impacts from the changes in 2015 that we are now in this situation.
If the groups are not prepared to do what the Conservatives are currently doing — and I will ask Senator White, since she has had no questions so far — what we are going to do to either self‑police individual senators and hold back on introducing five bills, doing one a session, or what other rules we can make through scroll meetings if they have any role to play in this. We have to keep this avenue open for senators; otherwise, we will end up with the House of Commons taking action before we do.
Senator White, do you have any suggestions?
Senator White: It’s a difficult balancing act when you try to balance the individual rights of a senator to bring common public bills versus saying that if we don’t have a formal process dictated by rules to say this is how we do it, I like the management style that the Conservative caucus has. I think that would work with supports, such as a subcommittee with resources. If you don’t have legal support to be able to perform analysis to know if your bill is actually valid or capable of moving, I don’t see how that would work.
Having said that from a rules perspective, from a scrolls perspective, we’re basically more into the administrative management of the agenda. If you are going to tack on a responsibility of actually vetting or determining a bill, I think that would change how we see ourselves — or certainly how I see us — as scrolls, because we are basically administrators of an agenda. So, that might be a challenge.
Leaders might have some thoughts on whether that would be a function that they would want deputy leaders or scrolls to take on.
That is all to say that we need to have a process, but I don’t think scrolls would be the avenue to vet that process.
Senator Surette: My question was along the same line as what was just asked, but I’ll ask it a little differently. The best person to answer would be Senator Martin, who has the most experience at scrolls.
We are facing challenges, but it seems like our solutions are quite limited or we lack consensus. Just to get a better sense of what role scrolls can play, can you explain to us what has changed at scrolls over the last number of years, understanding that the number of Senate public bills has increased over the last two sessions? Has the discussion changed? Is there an impact there that scrolls can make moving forward?
Senator Martin: A lot has changed. When I was Deputy Leader of the Government, we had two caucuses, the government and opposition. There were also some who were not affiliated — maybe three or four at the time.
If I were the government deputy leader, we would meet in my office with the Clerk of the Senate, who was just there to record the discussion. We would ensure we had a discussion about the Orders of the Day for that day. Sometimes, we were negotiating one or two items, so we would put things on hold, discuss with our leaders and then get back with what we would do.
It was much simpler with just two people. Now, we do have others, but we are a very well-functioning group. Everything does take more time.
Senator Surette: Specifically, if you go back to 2016, after the Senate became independent, did the number of bills increase greatly? I’m just wondering what role scrolls played at that time.
Senator Martin: Yes, but we didn’t have all the groups that we have now. Just by virtue of the fact that we have more groups, there are more bills. In each group, a senator is not competing with, say, a senator in another group. Just by virtue of the number of groups we have created, we have more Senate public bills to deal with.
Additionally, we decided to change the rule and add designated senators. Now, not only do we have sponsors and critics, we also have designated senators who can speak 45 minutes. Forty-five minutes is a long time for anybody, and then the leaders of government and opposition have unlimited time, as you know.
It has just evolved.
This is an issue. You’re right: We should do something within our own chamber before it becomes a greater issue. We could have those discussions at groups. If we all agree, or we have a vote and the majority decides, we will make those changes.
I’m confident that we will work this out.
Senator K. Wells: Just by listening to the conversation, I’m not sure that trying to put checks and balances at the group level really works.
My math is showing that a lot of the Senate public bills are coming from non-affiliated senators; in fact, it could be as high as 35% in the last session, showing 26 Senate public bills that have been introduced.
My question for you all in scrolls is this: Since there is not a representative from the non-affiliated senators who sit at scrolls, how do you manage those Senate public bills that come forward?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you for the question.
A lot has changed over the years, but it remains the case that the government still considers the non-affiliated senators. I bring it forward to scrolls to say that a non-affiliated senator has a bill and find out where it’s at. Sometimes, we will go directly to COPO to note that we really want to call the question, so I will bring it up and we will have that discussion.
Non-affiliated bills are still considered, and they still move as fast as anybody else’s does because it depends on whether groups are ready to move bills forward. Scrolls work really well because we don’t advocate for bills; there’s no advocacy that happens at that table. It really is a question to all the other scrolls deputy leaders: Is your group ready for that question?
Nobody raises a flag or says such and such has to be done. I think it used to happen in the past. When we were first working it out, given the independent Senate and independent groups, some of that was going on — not very much — but now, it really is just about the Order Paper in front of us and who is ready for the question.
Senator Ataullahjan: How do you deal with issues? There are five of you. What do you do when you don’t agree? How do you reach consensus? Not all people agree on everything, so at scrolls, how do you deal with that?
Senator Black: That might happen when it comes to calling the question, and I revert back to always asking my group, the CSG, what they would like to do with respect to that.
If I can’t answer the question, it will be this: I will get back to you. I will get back to them, but I would say it takes that level of immediacy back a little bit. That’s my two cents.
Senator Kingston: My observation has been that, since I’ve been on scrolls, a lot of moving a bill forward is organic. What I mean by that is that, as Senator Martin was saying, within their caucus you build support. Well, support is built in almost the same way. I think about the couple of bills that have done well, that is, have gotten over to the House of Commons and been looked at in a favourable way. The forced sterilization bill is a good example of that.
I know, in that case, the senator who was the one presenting the bill did do a lot of the steps that have been talked about in terms of what the Conservative caucus does. I went to meetings where she had brought in Justice to have things to say about her bill. She worked in the other place in order to build support. She worked within the whole Senate to build support, and she succeeded.
Although there’s not a process formally, the for the bills that make it — and my other observation has been that so many bills don’t make it — I would have to be very passionate about something to put it in the form of a bill, and I would have to think to myself: Does that have a chance of becoming law? Or do I actually want to do this for some other purpose? I want to move the agenda along. Maybe I can do it in other ways.
There is something to be said about not just looking at this in isolation but in other ways that senators could make an impact and could move their issues along.
The senators who are successful follow a process, albeit their own or with their own experience, such that they get it done.
Senator Martin: I will just say that we are a political chamber and we work very cordially. But there are times, and I will admit to my colleagues, I can’t say everything that I am aware of, only because I’m not sure exactly what my colleagues may do.
I do hold some cards close to my chest, and some things happen on the chamber floor. When it does, sometimes there are surprises, sometimes there aren’t.
My former opposition deputy leader would say, “We might need more time with this,” and there would be an indication that, no, we’re going to do something today. So it will happen, and every senator has that right. These surprises do happen because it is politics.
We communicate what we can, and we communicate with our caucuses and groups, but some things are very highly charged, and we ideologically do not agree. So things will happen on the chamber floor, and we know what our rights, privileges and tools are.
Senator Saint-Germain: I wonder if we are not underestimating the fact that, given that now we have five caucuses and groups, the time has come to, at the very least, update our processes or amend the Rules of the Senate.
I’m also worried. I wonder if we are not confusing the individual rights of senators to table Senate public bills with the better planning and organization of this chamber and the committees in order to have more predictability.
To that end, what’s the difference regarding infringing on the rights of senators in capping the number of statements, the number of questions they could ask to the government leader or to a minister coming during the ministerial Question Period or even speaking to motions? What would be the difference?
My question is mainly for you, Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: I did speak about the rights of each senator to do what he or she wishes to do regarding motions, inquiries and bills.
We have other issues at play where, sometimes, even though the groups are not ready for a question, and which we try to discuss to the best of our ability, there are certain colleagues who may hold the entire chamber hostage because he or she wants that one thing called to question.
We have experienced that over the course of our time. I am in agreement with all of you that we need to ensure that we are not overburdening the House, the elected chamber, and we know that, at the end of the day, with messages that go back and forth, we acquiesce at a certain point when we know that the elected chamber has said, “No, we reject these amendments; this is what we want.”
We have a lot of Senate public bills. We could keep a lot on the Order Paper until we’re ready and send fewer bills. I know we can do that. Each of the groups can have these discussions based on the committee report. I thought there were excellent testimonies, questions and answers.
I hope there will be some progress because, yes, I agree that updating processes is important, and we can do that as a chamber. With leave, we can do anything; and if there’s consensus, we can do all those things.
With regard to amending our Rules, I’m asking you to think about those consequences, whether you’re sitting on one side or the other. I know that’s a different context from where I’m from, but I know the Rules serve us very well. They are malleable, and then they come right back after leave is given. I love the Rules. I don’t love all the changes to the Rules, but I accept them. I know we will move forward because there’s a collective wish to do that.
I know I haven’t fully answered your question, but I’m also very cognizant of the rights we have, and once we remove them, how hard it is to get them back.
Senator Saint-Germain: In conclusion, it’s not infringing on the rights of senators to limit the number of statements and limit the number of questions, and it would be the same, from my standpoint, regarding the tabling of Senate public bills that are active one at a time or two at a time, whatever the Senate will decide, on the Order Paper.
If I may, I believe that the credibility of the Senate is at stake when so many Senate public bills, parliament after parliament, are dying on the Order Paper.
Senator Batters: With regard to the question and comment from Senator Saint-Germain, if you decided to limit questions to ministers, motions or inquiries, none of those things would have any impact on committee study. As I was testifying at the earlier panel, that’s the most significant thing that’s happened. We do have time in the chamber, but we have less time at committees.
My last question is for those attendees here from scroll. Occasionally, we have seen in the chamber where we have a senator who has not put their name on the scroll, even though they have been here long enough and have certainly held positions to know that they probably should because it’s helpful to their colleagues to know when they want to speak to a matter. Then, they get up and give a long speech that clearly they had been planning to make for at least a week before that happened. Do people at scroll the next day come back and say, “Could you in that group have a discussion with your colleague because really it helps everything?” I understand the ability of any senator to get up at any time without notice, but it sometimes does impact the significant efficiency of the Senate.
Are there ever those types of discussions that you have seen happen if that type of thing happens?
Senator Kingston: I won’t speak to your exact example, but if I become aware of things that are felt to be happening discussed by other groups because of my involvement in scrolls, then I go to the member and talk to them about what is happening and what could happen in terms of what they decide to do on the basis of any particular issue. That way, they do still have their independence, while at the same time, understanding that they are in a group of over 100 people who may or may not decide to act together because there isn’t support. It goes back to the same thing that I said before: If I want to do something in the Senate and I want to have it moved, then I will have to build support around the room for that. None of us can do that individually, and there is no group that holds a majority and is able to move forward with anything.
Although we can’t and won’t tell somebody that they cannot do something, individual senators — based on the broader picture that scrolls is able to give us — have the right to know what the room is thinking. If they are not building consensus in the way that they should around whatever their issue is, then maybe they can be helped to understand the perspective of others and change their tactics.
Senator Martin: We rarely talk about who actually spoke when they said they weren’t speaking, only because, on the chamber floor, sometimes debate generates more debate, and there is someone who had a prepared speech or who wasn’t planning on speaking because of what someone else said. We don’t rehash things because we’re always focused on the Orders of the Day, but I think all groups and members of our caucus are all guilty. We try and have the notes reflect what we think will happen based on our discussions, but that’s not always the case. It frustrates everyone, for sure, but it’s the nature of what we do in the chamber.
Senator Black: The deputy leaders all connect to have a text chat as well. More of those things, Senator Batters, we get texts from each other: “What just happened here? That wasn’t discussed.”
Senator White: In real time.
Senator Black: In real time. It’s not the next day that we say it. We’re as surprised as you are.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: There’s a lot of this going on.
The Chair: Thank you very much, panel. That brings us to the end of this panel and this session.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you all for appearing and for helping to enrich our understanding of this issue.
(The committee adjourned.)