As folks are probably aware, one of my most passionate political and constitutional interests is the ongoing conversation around the development and evolution of the Senate of Canada as a more effective, and independent, chamber of sober second thought. I think that the Senate has the opportunity, over the next several years, to reinvent itself as one of the cornerstones of Canadian democracy, and as a shining example to the international community of what a complementing chamber in a bicameral system can be, if done correctly.
Context
Some months ago, the Senate approved the creation of a special committee on Senate modernization. This special committee was created to study the options to modernize the Upper House, and to report recommendations to the Senate by the beginning of June. This was prompted by the Senate reforms being pursued by the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, P.C., M.P., the Prime Minister.
These reforms included (a) removing Senate Liberals from the Liberal Party's national parliamentary caucus meaning that, for the first time ever, there are dozens of honourable senators who are not affiliated with, nor can their votes be whipped by order of, one of the federal party leaders; and (b) creating an independent, merit-based advisory process for non-partisan Senate appointments, with the first five of those appointments to be made in just a few weeks; and (c) appointing, from among those independent senators, the government's representative in the Senate.
The committee membership includes:
I thought that a nice treat for all of you, so that you do not need to scour the committee transcripts, would be for me to lovingly deposit here, for all of you, my original summaries of the progress that is being made by the Senate modernization committee. No need to come up and thank me all at once.
The first meeting: February 24, 2016
The first meeting of each Senate committee is usually a fairly pro forma affair. A few procedural motions are offered up to kick-start the work of the committee: things like publishing transcripts, setting up spending authority for committee funds, and assigning parliamentary staff and analysts. This committee meeting kick-off, however, was not so straight-forward.
"Election" of the chairperson
Things started off controversially, with Senator Joyal (a Liberal) moving to appoint Senator McInnis (a Conservative) as the chairperson of the committee. The "arrangement" was preordained, based on the existing practices of the Senate — that is, the party leaders in the Senate consulted one another, and decided who they thought made the most sense to be the chairperson.
Senator McCoy (an independent senator who styles herself an "independent progressive conservative") tried to intervene and to ask for a genuine election process for the chairperson; however, existing Senate rules do not allow for debate or discussion on the election of a chairperson, and so the clerk was forced to proceed directly to a vote without hearing Senator McCoy.
The motion was carried, and Senator McInnis took the chair.
According to this "usual consultation," the committee then appointed Senator Joyal as deputy chair.
The sense of most of the honourable senators present seemed to be that this was not the time to be making snap decisions to change the Senate's existing practices, but that they should function under "the old way" for this one last committee, and to put all of this energy of suggesting reforms into their report to the Senate with their final recommendations.
Subcommittee on agenda and procedure
The next procedural-turned-controversial matter was the election of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. This subcommittee, which is struck for all Senate and House committees, is responsible for doing the legwork in preparing agendas and witness lists for committees, and is empowered to do some degree of committee administration (such as travel authorizations).
The proposal was for the subcommittee to consist of the chair (a Conservative), the deputy chair (a Liberal), and a third senator to be designated after "the usual consultation" (that is, as agreed between the Conservative and Liberal caucus leaders in the Senate). It was also proposed that the subcommittee would be empowered, by the full committee, to make decisions on its behalf.
Senator McCoy, ever the champion of Senate modernization, moved an amendment to the composition: Senator McCoy proposed that the third member should be required to be a non-partisan independent senator, so that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals would hold a majority of votes on the subcommittee. The debate on the amendment was a fairly substantial one, and when it came to a vote, a recorded vote was requested:
As such, the amendment was carried by a vote of 8 to 5, with a combination of Conservative, Liberals, and independents teaming up to switch a designation by the "usual consultation" of the party leaders with a non-partisan independent senator. Honourable senators then appointed Senator McCoy.
Other procedural things
The committee then approved motions to allow for the publication of the day-to-day transcripts of the committee, and authorized the chairperson to hold meetings and to hear from presenters when a quorum is not present, provided that there are at least one Conservative and Liberal senator present.
Senator McCoy, once again defending the role of independent senators, moved that at least one independent senator should also be present. As a compromise, committee members agreed that they would endeavour, wherever possible, that at least one independent senator be present at non-quorate meetings; however, this would not be an absolute requirement.
The committee also voted to allow the chair to appoint research, analyst, and other personnel; that the chair, deputy chair, and clerk be authorized to take care of accounts payable; that the subcommittee be authorized to approve travel plans and expenses; interpreting whether or not a senator is on "official business" for the purposes of Senate attendance; that the chair be authorized to approve witness expenses; and that the subcommittee be authorized to broadcast committee work.
Lastly, there was a motion to approve that honourable senators would each be permitted to have one staff-person, each, present during in camera meetings of the committee (in camera means a closed, confidential session). While there was some debate as to whether employees should be included in sessions that were traditionally senators-only, the motion was carried.
The meeting then moved in camera to discuss staffing details.
The next meeting of the committee is on March 9! Stay tuned for more exciting details.
You, too, can listen to the audio-feed from this meeting (transcript not yet available) here.
Context
Some months ago, the Senate approved the creation of a special committee on Senate modernization. This special committee was created to study the options to modernize the Upper House, and to report recommendations to the Senate by the beginning of June. This was prompted by the Senate reforms being pursued by the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, P.C., M.P., the Prime Minister.
These reforms included (a) removing Senate Liberals from the Liberal Party's national parliamentary caucus meaning that, for the first time ever, there are dozens of honourable senators who are not affiliated with, nor can their votes be whipped by order of, one of the federal party leaders; and (b) creating an independent, merit-based advisory process for non-partisan Senate appointments, with the first five of those appointments to be made in just a few weeks; and (c) appointing, from among those independent senators, the government's representative in the Senate.
The committee membership includes:
- Senator the Honourable Art Eggleton, P.C. (Liberal, Ontario)
- Senator the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal, P.C., O.C., Q.C. (Liberal, Kennebec, Québec)
- The Honourable Senator Diane Bellemare (Conservative, Alma, Québec)
- The Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools (independent, Toronto Centre-York, Ontario)
- The Honourable Senator Linda Frum (Conservative, Ontario)
- The Honourable Senator Stephen Greene (Conservative, Halifax-The Citadel, Nova Scotia)
- The Honourable Senator Janis Johnson (Conservative, Manitoba)
- The Honourable Senator Paul Massicotte (Liberal, De Lanaudière, Québec)
- The Honourable Senator Elaine McCoy (independent progressive conservative, Alberta)
- The Honourable Senator Tom McInnis (Conservative, Nova Scotia)
- The Honourable Senator Paul McIntyre (Conservative, New Brunswick)
- The Honourable Senator Caroline Stewart Olson (Conservative, New Brunswick)
- The Honourable Senator Scott Tannas (Conservative, Alberta)
- The Honourable Senator Claudette Tardif (Liberal, Alberta)
- The Honourable Senator David Wells (Conservative, Newfoundland and Labrador)
I thought that a nice treat for all of you, so that you do not need to scour the committee transcripts, would be for me to lovingly deposit here, for all of you, my original summaries of the progress that is being made by the Senate modernization committee. No need to come up and thank me all at once.
The first meeting: February 24, 2016
The first meeting of each Senate committee is usually a fairly pro forma affair. A few procedural motions are offered up to kick-start the work of the committee: things like publishing transcripts, setting up spending authority for committee funds, and assigning parliamentary staff and analysts. This committee meeting kick-off, however, was not so straight-forward.
"Election" of the chairperson
Things started off controversially, with Senator Joyal (a Liberal) moving to appoint Senator McInnis (a Conservative) as the chairperson of the committee. The "arrangement" was preordained, based on the existing practices of the Senate — that is, the party leaders in the Senate consulted one another, and decided who they thought made the most sense to be the chairperson.
Senator McCoy (an independent senator who styles herself an "independent progressive conservative") tried to intervene and to ask for a genuine election process for the chairperson; however, existing Senate rules do not allow for debate or discussion on the election of a chairperson, and so the clerk was forced to proceed directly to a vote without hearing Senator McCoy.
The motion was carried, and Senator McInnis took the chair.
According to this "usual consultation," the committee then appointed Senator Joyal as deputy chair.
The sense of most of the honourable senators present seemed to be that this was not the time to be making snap decisions to change the Senate's existing practices, but that they should function under "the old way" for this one last committee, and to put all of this energy of suggesting reforms into their report to the Senate with their final recommendations.
Subcommittee on agenda and procedure
The next procedural-turned-controversial matter was the election of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. This subcommittee, which is struck for all Senate and House committees, is responsible for doing the legwork in preparing agendas and witness lists for committees, and is empowered to do some degree of committee administration (such as travel authorizations).
The proposal was for the subcommittee to consist of the chair (a Conservative), the deputy chair (a Liberal), and a third senator to be designated after "the usual consultation" (that is, as agreed between the Conservative and Liberal caucus leaders in the Senate). It was also proposed that the subcommittee would be empowered, by the full committee, to make decisions on its behalf.
Senator McCoy, ever the champion of Senate modernization, moved an amendment to the composition: Senator McCoy proposed that the third member should be required to be a non-partisan independent senator, so that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals would hold a majority of votes on the subcommittee. The debate on the amendment was a fairly substantial one, and when it came to a vote, a recorded vote was requested:
- honourable senators in favour of the amendment (i.e., including an independent):
- The Hon. Senator Bellemare (Conservative)
- The Hon. Senator Cools (independent)
- The Hon. Senator Eggleton (Liberal)
- The Hon. Senator Massicotte (Liberal)
- The Hon. Senator McCoy (independent)
- The Hon. Senator McIntyre (Conservative)
- The Hon. Senator Stewart Olsen (Conservative)
- The Hon. Senator Tardif (Liberal)
- honourable senators opposed to the amendment (i.e., including an independent):
- The Hon. Senator McInnis (Conservative) (chair)
- The Hon. Senator Greene (Conservative)
- The Hon. Senator Joyal (Liberal) (deputy chair)
- The Hon. Senator Tannas (Conservative)
- The Hon. Senator Wells (Conservative)
As such, the amendment was carried by a vote of 8 to 5, with a combination of Conservative, Liberals, and independents teaming up to switch a designation by the "usual consultation" of the party leaders with a non-partisan independent senator. Honourable senators then appointed Senator McCoy.
Other procedural things
The committee then approved motions to allow for the publication of the day-to-day transcripts of the committee, and authorized the chairperson to hold meetings and to hear from presenters when a quorum is not present, provided that there are at least one Conservative and Liberal senator present.
Senator McCoy, once again defending the role of independent senators, moved that at least one independent senator should also be present. As a compromise, committee members agreed that they would endeavour, wherever possible, that at least one independent senator be present at non-quorate meetings; however, this would not be an absolute requirement.
The committee also voted to allow the chair to appoint research, analyst, and other personnel; that the chair, deputy chair, and clerk be authorized to take care of accounts payable; that the subcommittee be authorized to approve travel plans and expenses; interpreting whether or not a senator is on "official business" for the purposes of Senate attendance; that the chair be authorized to approve witness expenses; and that the subcommittee be authorized to broadcast committee work.
Lastly, there was a motion to approve that honourable senators would each be permitted to have one staff-person, each, present during in camera meetings of the committee (in camera means a closed, confidential session). While there was some debate as to whether employees should be included in sessions that were traditionally senators-only, the motion was carried.
The meeting then moved in camera to discuss staffing details.
The next meeting of the committee is on March 9! Stay tuned for more exciting details.
You, too, can listen to the audio-feed from this meeting (transcript not yet available) here.
Last edited: