Pursuant to notice of June 3, 2025, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, for the remainder of the current session:

1.with effect from the time the Senate adopts a report of the Committee of Selection concerning the membership of committees or the adoption of this order, whichever comes later, when the Senate sits on a Wednesday, it adjourns at 4 p.m., as if that were the ordinary time of adjournment provided for in the Rules, unless it has been suspended for the purpose of taking a deferred vote or has earlier adjourned; provided that if a vote is deferred to a Wednesday, or to later that same day on a Wednesday, it takes place at 4:15 p.m., with the Speaker interrupting the proceedings immediately prior to any adjournment, but no later than 4 p.m., to suspend the sitting until 4:15 p.m. for the taking of the deferred vote, with the bells to start ringing at 4 p.m.;

2.when the Senate sits on a Thursday, it sit at 1:30 p.m.;

3.the Senate invite any minister of the Crown who is not a member of the Senate to attend the Senate, at least once every second week that the Senate sits, during Question Period at a time and on a date to be determined by the Government Representative in the Senate, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups, and take part in proceedings by responding to questions relating to their ministerial responsibilities, subject to the rules and orders then in force, subject to the following conditions:

(a)neither senators when asking questions, nor the minister when answering, needs stand;

(b)the Government Representative in the Senate, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups, determine the minister to appear during such Question Period;

(c)at the beginning of Orders of the Day, the Government Representative in the Senate or the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate inform the Senate, as soon as possible in advance, but no later than the sitting day that would precede the day on which the minister would appear, of the time and date for Question Period with a minister, and the designated minister;

(d)if a standing vote would conflict with the time for Question Period with a minister pursuant to this order, the vote be postponed until immediately after the conclusion of Question Period;

(e)if the bells are ringing for a standing vote at the time for Question Period with a minister pursuant to the terms of this order, they are interrupted for Question Period at that time, and resume thereafter for the balance of any time remaining;

(f)senators are limited to one minute for any main question, ministers have up to one minute and thirty seconds to respond to a main question, senators have up to 45 seconds to ask one supplementary question, and ministers have up to 45 seconds to respond to this supplementary question; and

(g)the Question Period last a maximum of 64 minutes;

4.during any other Question Period, main questions and responses are limited to one minute each, followed by a maximum of one supplementary question per main question, with these supplementary questions and responses being limited to a maximum of 30 seconds each;

5.the Committee of Selection is a standing committee;

6.the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs is composed of 12 senators, in addition to the ex officio members, provided that if members have been named to the committee before the adoption of this order, the additional members be recommended by the Committee of Selection;

7.without affecting any authority separately granted to a committee to meet while the Senate is sitting:

(a)committees scheduled to meet on a Tuesday be authorized to do so as of 6:30 p.m., even if the Senate is then sitting, provided that the Senate has completed Government Business for the sitting; and

(b)other committees that are meeting on government business be authorized to meet on Tuesdays as of 6:30 p.m. or the end of Government Business, whichever comes later, provided that a majority of the whips and liaisons have given their approval and subject to capacity and the availability of necessary resources; and

(c)for greater certainty, the authority granted to leaders and facilitators, or their designates, under section 3 of Chapter 5:03 of the Senate Administrative Rules be, subject to capacity and the availability of services, unaffected by the provisions of this order;

8.joint committees be authorized, as far as the Senate is concerned, to hold hybrid meetings or meetings entirely by videoconference, with the following provisions applying in relation to any such meeting:

(a)all members participating count towards quorum;

(b)such meetings be considered to be occurring in the parliamentary precinct, irrespective of where participants may be located, subject to subpoint (d)(i);

(c)the committee is directed to approach in camera meetings with the utmost caution and all necessary precautions, taking account of the risks to the confidentiality of in camera proceedings inherent in such technologies; and

(d) subject to variations that may be required by the circumstances, to participate in a meeting of the committee by videoconference senators must:

(i)participate from a designated office or designated residence within Canada;

(ii)use a device and a headset with integrated microphone provided by the Senate and authorized for videoconferences with interpretation;

(iii)be the only people visible during the videoconference;

(iv)have their video on and broadcasting their image at all times, unless the meeting is suspended; and

(v)leave the videoconference if they leave their seat, unless the meeting is suspended;

9.any Senate committee be authorized to appoint senators who are not members of the committee to its subcommittees, other than its Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, provided that, for greater certainty, no member of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight may be appointed to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration under the terms of this order, and vice versa; and

10.the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to appoint the Legislative Deputy of the Government as a non-voting member to its Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, if it has such a subcommittee, without, for greater certainty, the limitation in point 9 applying;

That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament:

1.be authorized to examine and report on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister into the Rules of the Senate, including recommendations for amendments; and

2.submit its final report no later than December 18, 2025; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons in relation to point 8 of the first paragraph of this order, to acquaint that house accordingly.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to government Motion No. 5, which implements a number of pragmatic adjustments to the way this chamber operates and shall operate, were this motion to pass, for the remainder of the current session.

This motion is a comprehensive package that introduces and refines procedural practices, many of which the chamber has followed in recent years, and implements an agreement reached by the collective Senate leadership including myself, Senator Housakos, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Tannas and Senator Francis.

I’m very pleased to say that throughout this entire process, including in its conception, its drafting and ultimately in its presentation here in this chamber, all of my leadership colleagues were involved and provided their input. It is in this spirit that we have this motion before us. It is in that same spirit I hope we may have it adopted today.

I wish to turn now to the substance of the motion and outline for the benefit of you, my colleagues — including the newer senators — the elements contained in government Motion No. 5.

The first two provisions would affect the Senate’s sitting schedule. This includes returning to the normal 4 p.m. adjournment time for Wednesday sittings, including for any deferred votes scheduled that day to occur at 4:15 p.m. However, these elements will only take effect once the Senate has adopted a report from the Committee of Selection concerning the composition of committees. Once implemented, the 4 p.m. adjournment will accommodate committees scheduled to meet on Wednesday evenings.

In addition, the Senate would start sitting at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday sittings, instead of 2 p.m. This is in keeping with the practice that was followed during the Forty-second Parliament and it is designed to maximize our time in the chamber on Thursdays.

Second, the process for ministers’ Question Period will be re-established. This has been an important innovation in previous Parliaments. It has enabled senators to pose questions to ministers directly on their portfolios with regard to their responsibilities. It would follow the model previously used, while addressing a conflict that arose with standing votes or the ringing of bells during the scheduled time for ministers’ Question Period to ensure that it can proceed as planned.

In addition, the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament will be authorized to examine the model for ministers’ Question Period, and make recommendations to the Senate on potential amendments to incorporate this practice within our Rules.

Hitherto, colleagues — those who have more recently arrived — we have only accomplished ministers’ Question Period through sessional orders of the type that I’m proposing today.

These tweaks to the procedures for ministers’ Question Period were in direct response to concerns raised by some of my Senate leadership colleagues. It will enable the committee to determine how the process could work going forward while maintaining a system I know many senators have benefited from over the years.

Third, for regular Question Period, the motion would re-establish time limits from the previous Parliament with main questions and responses limited to one minute each, followed by a maximum of one supplementary question per main question with the supplementary questions and answers limited to 30 seconds each. This is to ensure that the 30-minute period is used efficiently while maximizing the number of questioners who can participate.

Fourth, as we have done in the past number of years, the motion would deem the Committee of Selection as a standing committee under our Rules, and enable the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs to have 12 members instead of 9.

Fifth, committees that are otherwise regularly scheduled to meet on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 p.m. would have permission to meet while the Senate is sitting. However, these provisions would only apply if we have completed government business for that sitting day. The same would apply to other committees using a Tuesday slot to study government business, subject to the approval of whips and liaisons.

Otherwise, if the chamber is still considering government business at the time those committees are scheduled to meet, they would have to seek permission from the chamber as part of our normal practice.

In addition, the motion would permit standing joint committees to meet in a hybrid format. This is to ensure consistency with the permanent hybrid model that exists in the House of Commons as part of their Standing Orders, though not ours in this place.

Therefore, this will enable senators who will sit on those joint committees to participate virtually with their colleagues from the House, ensuring and exercising the same privileges enjoyed by our colleagues in the House.

The motion would also permit any Senate committee to appoint senators who are not members of that committee to its subcommittees, excluding steering committees, otherwise known as the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

In addition, because of the unique and distinct mandate within our Rules, no member of Audit and Oversight can serve on the subcommittees of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and vice versa, to avoid any conflict of interest.

Finally, this motion would empower the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to include the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative as a non-voting member of its steering committee. I understand this is an issue of some concern to some colleagues in the Canadian Senators Group. I wish to explain the rationale for this.

Put simply, this provision creates a procedural mechanism allowing the committee to appoint the Legislative Deputy — Senator LaBoucane-Benson — as a non-voting member of steering. To be clear, the current motion does not obligate the committee to do so; it simply allows for it should the committee so choose.

The reason for including this non-voting position in this motion is because to do so would deviate from our Rules and, therefore, it requires an order of the Senate to make this option a possibility should the committee choose to exercise it.

Ultimately, this is a request that we in the Government Representative Office made — and I made — to leaders. It was discussed with all leaders and facilitators. It was endorsed by all leaders and facilitators.

Colleagues, as the Prime Minister has stated in both his mandate letter and in the recent Speech from the Throne, Canada’s ability to transition to an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy, as well as expediting nation-building infrastructure, is a critical policy focus of this government.

It is because of the importance and emphasis that the government has placed on resource development, infrastructure and the environment during the election campaign that we have asked the leadership in the Senate to support allowing the Government Representative Office to have a seat at the table.

As an Albertan, an Indigenous senator and a representative of the government, we are confident that Senator LaBoucane-Benson’s perspective and insight would be valuable to the committee’s decision-making process, its work plans and direction.

After all, as the government is spearheading federal-provincial interactions and Crown-Indigenous consultations as we speak, it simply makes sense for the steering committee to have access to the perspectives and feedback of one of the government’s representatives. Including the government’s voice on issues that are at the core of the democratic mandate that Canadians have bestowed upon it is legitimate, desirable and constructive. After all, an independent Senate is not a Senate in exile from other democratic institutions.

Therefore, colleagues, I hope we can adopt Government Motion No. 5 as it is presented to you today. Thank you for your very kind attention.

Will the senator take three questions?

Of course.

Thank you, Senator Gold. When I read the sessional order, I was taken aback to see that the Government Representative Office, or GRO, wants a representative from that office on the steering committee for Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Why does the GRO need to be on this committee and not some other standing committee?

The Prime Minister has also emphasized in the mandate the importance of ports, transportation corridors, finding new trading partners, using transportation modes, so why not that committee? Why this committee?

Thank you for your question. In the old days, before the changes introduced by the previous prime minister, the committees and the Senate were dominated by the government and opposition, and government always had, therefore, chairs and deputy chairs of committees and, hence, representation on steering committees.

In the evolution of the Senate to a less partisan, more independent Senate, and indeed one in particular that we are working in, the government has not had a position on any steering committees of any committees, for better or for worse. But it is because of the unique position of energy development and its relationship to the environment and to nation-building projects, as well as the special and ongoing relationships between the government and its partners in the provinces, territories and Indigenous communities, and the mandate given to this government, having run on this as its central policy focus, that we thought we wanted to at least give this particular committee — which will be seized, no doubt, with some, if not many, pieces of legislation to implement the government’s policy — the opportunity to hear from and benefit from the perspectives of a government representative, who is deeply committed to and connected to the nation-building exercises that we’re engaged in.

Thank you, Senator Gold.

One could make the same argument for the current times we’re living in with tariffs and transportation corridors and transportation in general, trading policies under siege. But in any case, is this a one-off, or is it a start of a new practice of government having direct participation, voting or not, to have influence over steering committee discussions and decisions, to report back to the full committee, where GRO and other leaders have ex officio status? Couldn’t those same concerns or advice or guidance be given in the presence of the full committee rather than influencing the independence of the steering committee?

I don’t want to make light of your question, although the government is being modest in its ask here. We are simply asking to authorize a committee in its wisdom to accede to our request; we’re not asking for more than that.

To be sure, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Government Representative or our deputies have ex officio status at committees, and all senators can attend any committees we want, although ex officio for us gives us a right to vote. But that’s different from providing input to the committee at the earliest stages as it develops its work plan.

The experienced senators and those of you who have sat — and many of you have — on steering committees know what an important responsibility it is to ensure the study of bills is done in a fulsome, balanced, effective and efficient way. If this motion passes and this committee chooses to act upon the authority that this motion gives it — again, a motion discussed and supported by all the leadership in this group, including your own — then I have every confidence that the committee will benefit from the early input from the representative of the government, who is and will be in possession of information relating to government-provincial-territorial discussions and the like, and will benefit the work of the committee as it conceives of its work.

Senator Gold, thank you for that answer, and I’ll come back to the central principle of the independence that is embraced by all of us in this chamber and the importance of the steering committee to have the ability to have those independent discussions without undue influence from government representatives in the steering committee.

We haven’t even struck the committees yet. It sounds like we may not have the committees struck before the fall. Why would we not allow the committees to be struck and have this very question discussed amongst the members of the committees so they have some level of understanding and comfort that this, in fact, would happen at steering committees? Why now? We’re going to have a new Government Representative in the Senate by the end of the month. Why not deal with this when the committees are actually struck?

I’m trying to be brief in my answer. This was a matter that was brought to the attention of the leadership table. It was discussed with the leaders. Leadership, their deputies and their chiefs of staff collaborated in the drafting, and suggestions were made, and adjustments were made. This point was not raised at any time. It is a reasonable request of the government to authorize a committee at this stage with a comprehensive motion to govern our procedures so that at such time as the committee is struck, it has the authority, notwithstanding the Rules, to accede to this request.

I’ve provided as best as I can the rationale for the request, the procedure which gave rise to the consensus amongst leaders and how this motion was brought forward as a government motion. Although it’s in the form of a government motion, it is the product of the collaboration and consensus reached by the leaders and their staff over a series of meetings, and so I really cannot add anything more. I ask for the support of this chamber for the motion as presented.

Thank you. The answer to most of your questions is no. That is not at all the intent.

Although no legislation has yet been tabled in the other place, we fully expect, by virtue of the statements made by the Prime Minister and from the discussions with his ministers, that we will be getting a bill soon. That legislation will deal with projects of national interest, of which many, directly or indirectly, are focused on energy. In anticipation of that and not yet knowing specific details of the bill, we have made this request at this time.

When the bill is tabled, leadership, as is the practice, will also then discuss together what process we would recommend for the study of the bill. We have not had those discussions yet because I, as the Government Representative, have not been in a position to share the details of that bill. I do not know them yet. That’s the next step.

This was in anticipation of the possibility that a bill dealing with major projects touching upon the mandate of this committee would, in fact, end up in that committee. If that’s not the case, then the authority will stay dormant. But based on the best information we had and our best guess, this was the issue. It had to do with the particular legislative initiatives that would be brought forward to implement these projects once the legislation came forward to create a framework for that.

I hope that answers your question. Let me be clear: This is not about signalling, subtly or not so subtly, what the government wants. I’ve always been very transparent — not only with my Senate leadership counterparts, colleagues, but with everybody in this chamber — about the government’s expectations.

I have also been very clear as Government Representative in the Senate that my role, in representing the Senate to the government, is to make clear what the Senate leadership and membership aspire to and what they request by way of time and processes to study bills. There’s nothing different here except the specific and unique moment that we’re in and, therefore, this particular request.

Thank you for your question. It gives me an opportunity to explain for those who may not know — certainly, new senators — the past practice. This carries forward that same practice.

You asked about consultation. At the beginning of a session, this office asks the leadership of every caucus and parliamentary group to submit their wish list of ministers whom they would like to see. We do our best to accommodate that. We have done a reasonable job under the circumstances and when we can. It’s not always easy to get ministers who are everybody’s first choice right away. Scheduling and other ministerial responsibilities sometimes get in the way. That can result in us not knowing which minister is coming until later than we — or, certainly, you — would like.

But that is real consultation. I can only assume, as I always have, that leaders share this with their colleagues so that the names they bring forward to us reflect what those who are not in the leadership teams of the different groups would like to see.

With regard to all of this, you’re quite right, Senator Batters, that it hasn’t always worked smoothly. We have sometimes had to wait a rather long time for certain key ministers to be available. As a result, there are clearly ways in which the system could be improved. At the suggestion of some of my leadership colleagues, we have decided it’s a good idea to ask the Rules Committee to look at this. The Rules Committee, in studying this, will look at the past practice and see how it can be improved. They can then make a decision on whether they think it is a good idea to propose changes or include them in the Rules. That’s a matter of which the Rules Committee will be seized if this motion passes.

Thank you, Senator Gold, for the motion you put forward. It’s always useful to look at motions to make the functioning of our chamber more efficient.

I have a question with regard to paragraph 3, on the invitation of ministers. I find those particular Question Periods very useful. With no disrespect to you, sir, the Question Period with the Government Representative is a difficult one. You’re not a member of cabinet and don’t have a portfolio, so there are various issues you’re not able to address. My sense is that many colleagues find the Question Periods with a minister to be particularly useful.

You suggested that there will be a ministerial Question Period at least every second week. I would suggest there be one every week so that we would know that, for example, every Thursday, there will be a ministerial Question Period. It’s not a lot to ask. We only sit 26 weeks. There are 28 cabinet ministers and about 10 secretaries of state. There may be two or three from whom we would want to hear more than once a year. What I’m suggesting is not excluded here because you say, “. . . at least once every second week . . . .” Would you consider doing this more often so that we are able to have what I find to be very useful exchanges with ministers?

Thank you for your question. I take no offence at your characterization at all.

The consensus among leadership, if there was a consensus — certainly the majority view — was that once every two weeks is an appropriate time frame. It’s a matter that can always be revisited in the future. As it currently stands, there is support among the leadership of all the groups and my office, as well, if I can say so, to continue the practice of every second week, and that’s what is in this motion. Thank you for your question.

Senator Cardozo, do you have a supplementary question?

I will just repeat the question that I posed: Would you please consider this down the road? That is to you and to the other leaders with whom you meet, including my leader.

Of course. I’m not here for much longer, but I think that this is an issue, if this motion passes, that could properly be discussed or at least put to the Rules Committee for discussion.

I disagree with appointing Senator LaBoucane-Benson. It is a conflict of interest. When you are a government representative, you work for the government, but you don’t work for First Nations. We are always at odds, and I have spoken to Senator LaBoucane-Benson about this. There’s a conflict of interest, and in the committee, there are representatives — are we not good enough? There was one representative on the steering committee — an Indigenous representative — so I don’t understand why you now want to put someone into the Energy Committee.

Thank you for your question. I don’t agree, with respect, that there’s a conflict of interest. We represent the government. We don’t work for the government. I have every confidence in my deputy — in both of my deputies — as I do in myself that we discharge our responsibilities and obligations honourably. I respect the difference of opinion that you have expressed transparently, and you can register that opinion, of course, in the vote, but I have to say, respectfully, that I simply do not see this request at all in the same way.

I agree with the majority of what you have written in the motion, except for that one specific part, so I am going to say “no” to this motion.

Do you have a question, Senator McCallum?

No. I’m saying “no” to the motion.

I wanted to respond to the senator, if I could, and return to the issue of the request that you are making to have a seat at the steering committee table. I’m sure you have discussed this with leadership, but we all have our views in here, so we’re just trying to gain some clarity. It is odd, as others have mentioned, that this request is specific to one committee. You have explained that you think a key piece of legislation may be sent there, but there will be lots of key pieces of legislation that come forward.

Given that it was the government’s decision to restructure the Senate and take itself out of the role of the government and opposition having a place on committees and a seat at the table, then it seems a little odd to come back and request that for one committee alone. It troubles me a little bit about the precedent because if you, for some reason, want to brief any committee or any steering committee about legislation that is coming, you have mechanisms to do that, and you also have the right to simply ask any committee chair and deputy chair if you could come and present to them. I think that’s what people are a little puzzled by, as this is a very specific request about a very specific committee.

Thank you for your question, senator. I tried to explain it as best as I could in my text but also in my response to questions regarding the reason we raised this specific committee at this specific time in this specific period of still uncertainty as to what the content of the legislation dealing with national projects will be, but we’re taking our cue from what was discussed during the election campaign, the Speech from the Throne and other remarks from the premiers and the Prime Minister most recently.

I’m unhappy to hear that people are troubled by it. This is not a precedent. This is a provision in a standing order that would authorize the committee — though not require it — to provide a seat, as I’ve already described. Eight and a half or nine years ago — or even some years before that — even before the government decided to change its relationship with senators, this place changed, and it continues to change and continues to evolve. This is not anything other than a request at this moment in time because of the particular circumstances of this time — notwithstanding that our Rules always require voting or treat steering committee members as voting members — in order to provide this opportunity, as I said, for a government representative to provide direct input and assistance to the steering committee, if they so wish, if and when this particular committee deals with a project of national importance.

Senator Gold, this is a short question, but I think it’s a highly relevant question. At any point during these discussions, was it contemplated to make the work environment — through this proposal — be more inclusive and less discriminatory and less exclusionary to non-affiliated senators?

Thank you for your question, and the short answer to your very legitimate question is that the focus of this particular sessional order was exclusively on the matters that you see contained herein. The question of what responsibilities are assumed by leadership and the groups, including the government — and we all have responsibilities to assume — to ensure that all senators have access to information, decisions and support is an ongoing conversation that we have. But this particular motion was focused very much on those issues that were brought to the table in order to facilitate these aspects of the work.

One of the fundamental practices and principles of our system is the separation of powers — the judicial, the executive and the legislative branches. This seems to fly in the face of that by specifically inserting someone from the executive branch, the Government Representative — a government representative, as that’s the name of your group — into a legislative body, or a committee. I see the confusion on your face, but tell me where I’m wrong on this.

There is a very different connection between the executive that you described and the legislative branch in the parliamentary system than, for example, in a republican system. But let’s be clear: The Senate has always had and recognized a special place and role for the government. The Rules of the Senate and the practices of the Senate continue that, as I described earlier, by virtue of giving me, as the Government Representative, an ex officio role, which is a voting role on each and any committee. As has been validated by former Speaker Furey’s ruling, it also has the authority to invoke and move time allocation. There is nothing inconsistent with the way in which the Senate has evolved — even through this period of change that we’ve been living through for the last almost 10 years — by making a request to have a non-voting member of the Government Representative Office, and we are senators who represent the government. We are not the government. And there is a difference — a fundamental difference, in my opinion — but you may think differently. I don’t see anything inconsistent with either the Senate traditions or, indeed, the Westminster traditions in asking the Senate to give a committee, which is otherwise the master of its own fate, the ability to invite and to appoint a representative of the Government Representative Office under the circumstances I’ve described.

Just so there’s clarity on this, who would decide whether the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative would be permitted into the steering meeting? Would that be a steering decision? Are we now stamping this in stone? Or would it be a decision of the committee? Who decides whether this option is undertaken?

I don’t have the motion in front of me, but it simply authorizes the committee, whatever processes the committee itself decides.

To the newer senators here, every committee has a so-called steering committee, and they can delegate certain responsibilities to the steering committee. Depending on how this committee decides to organize itself, it will decide itself whether to avail themselves of the authority that this proposal would give. It would be up to the committee to decide.

Honourable senators, I’ll start by saying that I fully appreciate the role of the leaders and of the Government Representative in the Senate, and I know that they undertake their work very seriously.

But I also know that each of us who were appointed by the previous government had our discussion with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told me and others whom I talked to — they had the same message delivered to them — that we look to you to work within the Senate and to see how the policies of government are progressing, and if you have a concern, you should raise those concerns. If you disagree with them, you should vote against them, but you should be independent. That’s what the Prime Minister whom I spoke with was advocating, the independence of the Senate.

I know that we have leaders here who do their work, and the results of their discussions come back to our groups. Sometimes they consult in advance, and sometimes they come back and say, “This is what the discussion was, and here’s where we’re going.” That doesn’t take away from each of us as individual senators. We’re the same as our leaders in that we’re appointed senators. We have the right, if we have a concern, to raise it in the chamber so that our colleagues can take it under consideration. That’s what I’m trying to do here.

The motion has 10 elements and subelements, and I’m raising concerns with one element because of the independence of the Senate that I think is being compromised to a degree.

At the federal level, there are three distinct branches of government that act as checks and balances: the judicial, the legislative and the executive. The comments forthcoming deal with the legislative and the executive. The important distinction between those two branches is that the Prime Minister and cabinet form the executive, which does not include other elected MPs.

In other places, members of the executive can be called before committees, but they are not part of the steering committee process of their committees. I believe this is to prevent undue influence of the executive over the work of the committee.

In the Senate, the GRO is the representative of the government in the chamber; ergo, as Senator Wells has indicated, they are representatives of the executive branch here in the Senate. The GRO’s primary function is to advance the government’s agenda.

The sessional order is proposing that the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative would become a non-voting member of the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources steering committee. Those of us who are on steering committees know that there are discussions that take place that influence recommendations that come back to the full committee. This would provide the GRO the opportunity to unduly influence those discussions or decisions that would come back to committee.

While I take no issue with the government having ex officio status on a Senate committee, I would argue that given Senator Gold’s or his representative’s right to be an ex officio member at the full committee, which he or one of his representatives exercises, that presence does, in fact, have an influence on processes such as clause-by-clause consideration of bills. This, of course, is their role. Quite frankly, it was something that I experienced first-hand as a new senator during the debates and committee work on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, both of which I voted for at the end of the day, principally because of the debate and the things I learned through the views of other people in this chamber.

I think that this institution needs to practise the independence that has been bestowed upon us and that we don’t risk any factor that could compromise that independence. Therefore, I believe that the GRO should not have the right to be on the steering committee of Energy or any other committee, because it does beg the question: If it’s this committee now, what’s to prevent it from another committee later?

After sober second thought, I believe this proposal is unnecessary in what is otherwise a very good motion. It is concerning due to its insertion of the executive branch into the very jewel that we, as senators, give most importance — the independent functioning of our Senate committees. Therefore, I respectfully move a motion to make an amendment.