Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Second Report of Committee--Debate Adjourned
March 10, 2026
Honourable senators, I want to briefly draw your attention to the second report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament with respect to the role of non-affiliated senators.
You will know there are two kinds of reports that the Rules Committee can table in the Senate. One is like our first report, and that is where we recommend rule changes which have to, of course, be adopted by the full chamber.
This second report is of the other kind, which is simply tabling for your consideration the views of the committee with respect to a subject matter that has been drawn to the committee’s attention, and that is the role of the non-affiliated senators.
I don’t want to take much time going into detail, but I simply want to remind the Senate that the committee dealt with this issue over nine meetings. The committee heard from 13 witnesses. Of those nine meetings eight of them involved 12 witnesses and were held before the study lapsed following the prorogation of the First Session of the Forty-fourth Parliament. The committee resumed its study in the Forty-fifth Parliament, and the results of it are contained in this report.
Rather than make recommendations for rule changes, which the committee viewed as not being required, we did outline a number of best practices. I only want to reference one because I want to encourage that be read and proceeded with by the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, COPO with the cooperation of the Government Representative’s Office, GRO, and the scroll process. That is, we should:
. . . develop a formalized practice to ensure that all senators, including non-affiliated senators, receive timely, updated, complete, equal and consistent information on statements, debates, votes, bills, motions and chamber agenda changes. The leadership representatives from other recognized groups and parties may be included in the development of this practice.
The committee requests that this formalized practice improve mechanisms for communicating last-minute changes by providing an online version of the daily scroll notes that is updated in real-time . . . .
I bring this to your attention, colleagues, because I think, while this measure is under the rubric of non-affiliated senators, it is a measure that would help us all follow the proceedings as they evolve.
So I commend the report to you. I invite those who are referenced to particularly pay attention, and I encourage them to follow up.
Will Senator Harder take a question?
Absolutely.
Thank you, Senator Harder, for your work. We are going to take the report under consideration and review it carefully. I haven’t had time to do that yet, but I did hear, more or less, the objective of the report from you. It strikes me that if there aren’t entrenched rule changes, then the objective here is just trying to count on the goodwill of the various groups in the chamber and the Speaker in order to bring into practice what you’re recommending.
I know that in the past, once upon a time, there were very few non-affiliated senators, and there was always an attempt made to try to keep them up to speed in terms of amendments and motions and what have you. I’ll give you a simple example. Today, we had a series of amendments on Bill C-12. Forget about non-affiliated members; members of the official opposition and, I suspect, members from other groups never got those amendments until we came to the floor. Actually, I think the good practice you’re recommending is something that maybe could be expanded.
That is precisely why I raise it, senator. Because while the rubric was non-affiliated, we would encourage that this practice be broadly shared and made available to all senators so that we can have a better in-time, real-time awareness.
With respect to your premise, yes, the best practices are referenced in the report in the sense of how we should accommodate the non-affiliated, should that number increase, including sessional orders, which I would, again, reference to the chamber as having accommodated significant changes in the ups and downs of the last 10 years, and it is a good practice to remind ourselves that that is available to the Senate.
I would like to ask a question as well, Senator Harder. I’m sure he will take it. If not, he will stay in his seat.
Senator Harder, thank you for that report. I’m glad you highlighted that the new technology that we’re all using every day on our laptops and our phones is not being used in the Senate. We are not using it to keep people informed. The report is focused, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, on the non‑aligned senators, but there is a lack of information available for all senators. Adapting technology to the Senate will address that.
I hope the government leader and the people in the other groups who have to take action on this will take that action.
I’m wondering if you could tell me if there are any advances being made on how we vote. We’re doing the best practice of 1867. We’re all standing up, bowing. We have all seen what happens when ministers are here. When they vote, they say, “Excuse me,” and are gone for 30 seconds, and then they’re back testifying in Committee of the Whole.
Is there any consideration to adapting the Senate to that as well?
Thank you for the question. Senator, you will know, as a member of the Rules Committee, that this subject has not been discussed in that committee. It came up tangentially in the course of this conversation on the non-affiliated in the sense of utilizing technology for our collective benefit.
With respect to the innovation of voting remotely or voting online, it is more appropriate that the leaders be the stimulus for further consideration and direction to the appropriate Senate committee, should that be desired.
