QUESTION PERIOD — Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Business of the Committee
October 29, 2025
My question is for the Chair of the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee, Senator Moncion.
I was the Deputy Chair of the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee for all of 2018 and 2019. In 2018, the committee had 20 meetings, with no election and no prorogation. In 2019, even with a federal election, the committee still had 16 meetings. It does have the power to meet during dissolution and prorogation.
You became the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee chair in mid-2022. In 2023, the committee only had 13 meetings, with no election and no prorogation. In 2024, there were only 12 meetings, with no election and no prorogation. Your committee passed the $139‑million Senate budget last December and didn’t have another meeting until June, with a full six months between meetings. You’ve only had four meetings this year.
That’s not even close to good governance or proper accountability of taxpayer dollars. Why, under your leadership, has there been such a decline in the frequency of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee meetings, where senators can get answers for taxpayers?
Thank you for the question. Senator, you know that during prorogation, the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee steering committee meets, and it met on a regular basis. Under my leadership, steering continued its work. All proper reports have been provided to the committee members, who have had the opportunity to have answered any questions regarding any decision made by steering. There is transparency in the committee work, and this information is available.
The full Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee can also meet. At the last meeting, you told this committee’s senators that a “for information” agenda item meant there was no opportunity for discussion or to ask questions about it.
Actually, “for information” means there is no motion for a vote. It doesn’t mean dictatorship with no discussion and no questions. You pointed to the lengthy meeting agenda as the reason for skipping questions, but if your committee met more frequently, your agendas would not be so long. Are these infrequent meetings just another way of avoiding proper accountability and debate?
It is unfortunate, senator, that you present a committee, especially the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee, the way you do. This committee takes its role extremely seriously. Any senator who wants to ask a question about information items or anything on the agenda can do so. When there is not enough time during a committee meeting to answer some of the questions or have proper discussions, they are taken at the next meeting. A lot of these questions are brought to other meetings so that senators have time to scrutinize —
Thank you, Senator Moncion.
Senator Moncion, more and more decisions from the committee, certainly ones on policies affecting our staff, appear to be taking place in camera. That was certainly the case with the adoption of the new values, ethics and conflict of interest code for senators’ staff adopted in June of this year, as well as a subsequent decision to pause the code pending further review. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for people to understand not only the rationale for the decisions but also their obligations, especially when the decisions themselves are not being communicated to senators and staff until weeks or even months later.
Could you please explain the rationale for making so many decisions in camera and why it then takes so long to inform us of those decisions?
Thank you for the question, senator. The ethics and values code for the senators’ staff was a document that was studied for four years. A lot of information was provided to staff. Staff and senators were consulted.
You had, at the time, a member, Senator Seidman, representing your party at the Subcommittee on Human Resources. That policy was presented to the Senate on June 19 in camera because this is information that touches on personnel issues. When we brought it back in September, we received communications regarding some discrepancies that may be irritants to staff. We decided to pull that policy for now and have a —
Thank you, Senator Moncion. The time is up.
Could you please tell us why this new policy was necessary? Was there an incident under the old code that warranted changing the policy?
Thank you very much for the question. That policy was 40 years old, so the review was from 1985. This is part of the review of all policies and procedures that is taking place at the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
The 40-year-old policy needed a review, and like I said, we did work according to a schedule. We did consult. It seems that there is still work to be done, and it was pulled so that the policy can be improved and brought back —
Thank you, senator. Your time has expired.
My question is also for the chair of the Internal Economy Committee.
There have been an extraordinary number of exemptions over the last couple of years that have been given to colleagues. These have created quite an elastic situation when it comes to the rules and applications of those rules, which have led to some media stories over the last little while. That concerns all of us because it disparages the reputation of this institution.
As the chair of the Internal Economy Committee, can you confirm for us that all the exemptions that have been granted by steering to various colleagues — I’m sure some are legitimate — have been reported to the committee? Have those reports also been filed here in the Senate Chamber?
Thank you for the question.
If we are speaking of the media inquiries that were brought forward in the last few weeks, senator, none of them came to steering. They were associated with senators’ expenses, and they were related to expenses that were permitted under the Rules of the Senate.
As for the other exceptions, every one of them is reported back to CIBA, and that is done in the public portion of the meeting. Every senator who is a member of the Internal Economy Committee has had the opportunity to question every exception that has been granted.
Many exceptions are brought forward. Not many are approved.
There was once a practice at Internal Economy in which no exception requests were being made, so the question I have is: Why are a large number of exceptions being brought before CIBA all of a sudden? Why are we not just sending senators to the Committee of the Whole in order to plead their case?
Thank you for the question.
There are two things there, senator. I will give you a rule reading; I think it’s rule 15-6(1), but I would have to check the number. It provides the opportunity for senators to present exceptions at steering and at the Internal Economy Committee. When steering refuses a request, the senator can appeal the request at Internal Economy. This is the procedure that has been used.
My question is for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Senator Moncion, can you tell us whether every caucus and group in the Senate participate in the steering committee’s meetings?
Thank you for the question. Yes, senator, all of them are there.
In that regard, can you tell us whether decisions are made by majority voting?
Decisions are almost always made by majority voting, and the chair usually doesn’t vote. Sometimes there is dissent, and any dissent is included in the information reported to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
