Proceedings of the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Formerly: The Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 21, 2001
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12 p.m. to consider matters pursuant to its mandate under rule 86(1)(f) of the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Jack Austin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is our first working session since the committee was constituted, and we have something of an agenda.
I welcome Senator Pitfield, who is joining the committee. There is applause here. That is probably the only applause you will hear for a while. Senator Hervieux-Payette found she had a conflict in timing and stepped down from the committee after her initial appointment, so Senator Pitfield has agreed to take her place.
We have some old business that is a bit piquant for the members who spent countless hours dealing with the question of privilege raised by Senator Kinsella relating to a complaint by Dr. Shiv Chopra. The Public Service Staff Relations Board has rendered a decision in connection with Dr. Chopra's grievance. We dealt with the question of privilege on whether Dr. Chopra and other colleagues in Health Canada had been intimidated or whether there was an attempt to intimidate them in connection with evidence they were giving before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. We did not find sufficient evidence to find that the question of privilege had been established. However, we were concerned in our report as to the issues that arose outside of our direct focus. I will ask our researcher, Jamie Robertson, to give us a brief summary of the outcome of the hearing before the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Mr. James Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament: Dr. Chopra is a drug evaluator with Health Canada. He was involved with the approval of rBST, the bovine growth hormone, which had been controversial. He appeared on several occasions before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Shortly after his last appearance, he appeared at a conference on racism sponsored by Heritage Canada. He made statements at that conference regarding the existence of racism in the Department of Health. Subsequently, he was disciplined for making those statements and given a five-day suspension without pay. As Senator Austin has mentioned, the issue was raised in the Senate, and there was found to be a prima facie case, the allegation being that Dr. Chopra's suspension was a veiled or disguised way of disciplining him for his testimony before the Senate.
Dr. Chopra's suspension was also grieved and was heard by the Public Service Staff Relations Board. A lengthy decision was given last week, approximately 20 pages in English. The board reviewed the testimony given by the department and by Dr. Chopra.
In the end, the adjudicator found that the grievance was made out, that there were not sufficient grounds to discipline Dr. Chopra, and that he should not have been suspended for five days without pay. The adjudicator found essentially that his information was covered by freedom of expression or free speech and that he was entitled to make his comments about the state of racism within the department. The board rejected the department's views that it was justified in disciplining him, and it found that Dr. Chopra was unjustifiably disciplined.
There was a brief reference in paragraph 29 of Dr. Chopra's arguments to the fact that Dr. Chopra was convinced that he was suspended for having testified a few weeks earlier before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. However, there was no discussion of that issue in that decision, nor does the issue appear to have been raised by anyone else.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a fair amount of work before us. I would like to discuss the agenda with you. We have an order of reference from the Senate in connection with an examination of the structure of committees.
Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, we have several members missing who are attending a vote on membership in a NATO committee. I would ask that we go to another agenda item prior to this one.
The Chairman: I am only discussing the agenda. I was about to say that I had been advised by Senators Robichaud and Kinsella that they will be somewhat late this morning, for the reason that Senator Stratton mentions.
Before I ask them to lead off, I propose to ask some questions about the way in which we will deal with this order of reference.In particular, the terms of the reference give us a series of items to take into consideration: human resources, scheduling, the mandate, the total number of committees and the number of senators on each committee. We will certainly consider those items.
I ask the committee to examine the nature of the difficulties. Rather than approach the issue in a quantitative way, let us look at it a qualitative way. What is the nature of the difficulties that each side of the house anticipates it could experience in this Parliament? With this approach, we will deal with the issues and will be focused when we examine the order of reference.
The second item deals with revising the Rules of the Senate. I had asked on behalf of the committee that Senator Molgat appear before us in the next several months to discuss his experiences as Speaker and to provide us with his sense of the manner in which the rules should work. It is with great regret that we do not have the experience of Senator Molgat. However, I can advise committee members that under Senator Molgat's direction, a good deal of work was done by his officers. That work is available and I will be asking Speaker Hays if he would agree either to lead in the presentation of that work or allow his officials to give us the background briefings that were prepared under the direction of Senator Molgat. I trust that would be useful.
Senator Stratton: I understand that a draft report is ready.
The Chairman: There is a document available, but it is now the property of Speaker Hays.
Senator Stratton: Could we ask the Speaker, prior to his appearing here, if we might have the opportunity to read it so we are familiar with it when he is making his presentation?
The Chairman: As I said, with the agreement of honourable senators, I will approach the Speaker to see if he is prepared to appear and prepared to introduce the document. If he is, then I will ask that the document be made available. A number of topics are raised in it. The question is this: Should we see them all ahead of time or see them seriatim, issue-by-issue?
The motion of Senator Gauthier with respect to the establishment of a Senate committee on official languages is a topic that I suggest we defer for the time being but retain on the agenda.
Senator Gauthier: Can you defer this motion? I want to speak to it.
The Chairman: After I finish my comments, I would be delighted to hear your comments.
Senator Stratton: I would like to add to Senator Gauthier's comments when he is finished.
The Chairman: Fine.
My understanding is that the Senate has proceeded again with the organization of a joint committee on official languages. The question is whether the motion of Senator Gauthier is one that should be proceeded with at this time so that we deal with the possibility of setting up a separate committee as well as the joint committee, or we see whether the joint committee functions in a better and more acceptable form than in the past. If we reach the conclusion that the joint committee is not effective, then we can deal with the motion of Senator Gauthier. That is a proposal from the chair, but it is open for discussion.
Senator Gauthier, I would prefer deferring your motion, reviewing the agenda and then returning to deal with specific issues.
When Senators Robichaud and Kinsella appear as our witnesses, I would like them to deal with the first order of reference, and then we will deal with the motion of Senator Gauthier.
We have had on our agenda for some time a discussion of the treatment of disabled senators, under the categories of temporary, longer-term and permanently disabled. This matter will also be discussed later in terms of the Internal Economy Committee because it is both financial in nature and it also applies to our rules.
Item No. 5 on the agenda relates to the recognition of the third party in the Senate. Under our order of reference, we have the permanent ability to deal with matters of the rules and revision of the rules. Under that order, we began in the last Parliament to discuss the question in a preliminary way. We have a paper prepared by our researcher on the recognition of third parties, and it has been circulated to all honourable senators. However, Senator St. Germain has introduced a motion to refer the same item to this committee. I have read his address.
I see nothing different from what we have already begun. I am sure that none of us objects to the Senate giving us an order of reference for what we have already undertaken under our own authority, but I think that in the circumstances we should await the disposition of the order of reference before we proceed to deal with the item on third parties.
We will then deal with some very important items in camera. I do not think that we will have the time today to get to them, but I do want agreement that we should proceed with them. The first item relates to the proposed rules regarding senators under indictment, after conviction, on appeal and after final judgment. It was the consensus of the committee that after questions were disposed of relating to senators who were then members, we should turn to this item.
I have put down an item relating to a possible change of name, and we will defer that to a later time.
The clerk wants to discuss with us an issue related to the declaration of qualification. The clerk is not available at the moment, but he will be with us next week. Perhaps we can proceed with it then.
Senator Stratton: Since the meeting of February 21, the list that you have presented today has been revised. Some items have been dropped. Is there a reason for that?
The Chairman: None at all. To which items are you referring?
Senator Stratton: There was the conference with the House of Commons, errors on parchment, and a review of summoning witnesses before committees.
The Chairman: Those should continue on our agenda. Is the Royal Assent bill referred to us yet?
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chairman: Those items should remain on our agenda.
Senator Stratton: I believe that Senator Gauthier wanted to discuss petitions as well.
The Chairman: We can do one of two things. We can propose an agenda for the day, or we can propose a rolling and continuing agenda.
Senator Stratton: I just wanted to ensure that some of those agenda items were not forgotten. As long as they are still there, that is fine.
The Chairman: I would ask the clerk to keep the full compendium of our agenda so that everyone will know the work before the committee. However, I will indicate henceforth what I think are the priorities for discussion.
Senator Gauthier: Do we have a steering committee?
The Chairman: We do. The members are Senator Stratton, Senator Poulin and myself.
Senator Gauthier: Do they meet to set the priorities, or do you set the priorities?
The Chairman: I set the priorities, but if they have an objection they will tell me what it is, as can any other senator.
Senator Stratton: All I would ask is for a phone call and a discussion.
Senator Gauthier: I would like the report of the steering approved by this committee before we move on to any agenda. I do not like the chair to be the only one to decide what we will talk about. There may be things that he forget, things that he does not care about or things that he does not want to hear. I want to have some order in my thinking in preparing my work, and I want to be sure that the steering committee has the approval of the whole committee for the agenda to be set.
We talked about the petition issue last time. I have talked about official languages for a year and one-half to two years, and we are still in abeyance. I know that it may be a complex issue, but I want to discuss it here at this committee. I will not accept that you, Mr. Chairman, decide the priorities. It would be easy for you to give other items higher priority than my issue.
I am number three on this agenda today. When will we get to it?
The Chairman: Every senator can make representations as to the order of priority. My experience in the Senate since 1975 has been that the committee should have sufficient confidence in the chair to understand the priorities of the committee. If there is a dispute as to priority or if I am uncertain about priority, I will certainly discuss it with the steering committee and I will particularly discuss it with Senator Stratton. My custom with Senator Grimard was to send him the draft agenda. If he had any comments with respect to the order of priority, or any other views, he would phone me. However, it is not convenient to have a steering committee meeting every week to set an agenda. It is time consuming and often unnecessary.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of confidence in your capacity as chairman. I am not questioning that at all. If we want this committee to proceed in an orderly fashion, knowing that everyone has different agendas, I think it would be appropriate for this committee, which has important issues to settle, that the steering committee meet regularly to recommend an agenda to the whole committee and that we proceed with that agenda. If an exceptional item comes up, surely you can use your judgment, but we must have some order.
The Chairman: This morning, before starting any item of business, I have discussed the agenda with the entire committee. I am open to views on what our priorities should be. I did not start with any business item this morning. I did not assume the priorities of the committee. I said, "Let me review the agenda and discuss what is before us."
Senator Stratton: Perhaps when we are examining the structure of committees it would be appropriate to discuss Senator Gauthier's proposed Senate committee on official languages. To separate it out as we go through the examination of the structure of committees is illogical. Senator Gauthier is then playing a role as his proposal works its way through. I think it would be wise for us to do that.
The Chairman: I am happy to do things that way if Senator Gauthier is happy with that. It is a separate order of reference to this committee. I believe he is entitled to have it discussed, to begin with at least, as a discrete subject. Then if it is the view of the committee that the senator's proposal form part of the overall review, that is easily done and would be very acceptable.
Senator Di Nino: I would like to go back to Senator Gauthier's previous question. Perhaps we should redefine the purpose and the role of the steering committee. If its role is not to meet and discuss the agenda and the priorities, we may not need such a committee. Let us understand what the role of a steering committee is to be; then we can decide whether we need one.
The Chairman: I am happy to put that matter on the agenda as well and discuss the purpose of the steering committee.
Senator Bryden: It makes sense for the steering committee periodically -- and that may be once a month rather than every week -- to determine the long-term agenda and for the chairman to begin the meeting with the agenda.
Mr. Chairman, we have an hour and one-half to meet. We have not cleared the agenda yet and half an hour is already gone. Although I am new on this committee, what seems to be happening is that instead of having the steering committee agree with the agenda, you are asking the entire committee to agree with the agenda, which means that many more people must come to agreement. It appears that we will spend all of our time trying to agree on an agenda.
Can we not have a continuing agenda that is set and amended from time to time by the steering committee, leaving with the chairman the discretion he already has? He interferes if there is an emergency item, but when we come in here, we start with No. 1 on the agenda, unless for some reason we must go to No. 6.
The Chairman: This is our first working meeting, and I thought it appropriate to review with the committee the entire agenda of work and business. I will be happy to discuss with the steering committee the entire agenda and to discuss also with the steering committee what priorities should be adopted by this committee.
Senators can always make representations that the order of the agenda is not to their liking. I understand that is what we are doing at this particular moment. I hope this is a tempest in a teapot, as it will be difficult to run this committee if formal meetings of the steering committee are required all the time for no other reason than to have a formal meeting of the steering committee, with no real business. There is an easy flow of discussion between the clerk and I in regard to sending out the agenda and having the comments of senators transmitted over the phone to myself and to the clerk if they disagree with the order of the business. If we must have formal meetings, I will do my best to hold them. However, I do want to record in our discussions today that I think this will usually be cumbersome and unnecessary.
Having said that, I am ready to proceed with the order of business, but Senator Kinsella in not here.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am authorized to speak on his behalf.
The Chairman: Can we proceed with the first item?
I saw Senator Gauthier put up his hand. He may have another view. My suggestion is that we proceed to the first item and then to the third item. Is that satisfactory, Senator Gauthier?
Senator Gauthier: I want to condense my thoughts on what you just said. I have the impression that you are not in favour of having a steering committee meet regularly to decide on the agenda of the committee. If that is the case, I want you to be frank with me. If we do not have a steering committee deciding on priorities, I do not want to have someone telling me at the last minute that there is a priority item.
The Senate has decided to send this committee certain issues, such as my motion and the motion adopted last week on restructuring committees. I want to ensure that we look in an orderly fashion and without prejudice to anyone at the matters that we get from the Senate. It is important to me to know that when a motion is adopted in the Senate and referred to this committee in February, it will be looked at in a decent time frame. If another motion comes to the committee in May, I do not want that motion to displace this motion.
You are not always here, Mr. Chairman. I want to go to someone and talk with them. If I know who the members of the steering committee are, I can make my points with them, but it is important to talk about certain issues and make points about the priorities. I do not want to be difficult, but I think this issue is important.
Every committee on which I have participated over the last 30 years has a steering committee that meets. You do not have to have a formal meeting. You can meet in the Senate or in the lobby. You say, "Here is the agenda," and the committee members consult one another. If I know who the members are, I can talk to them. I do not need to disturb you.
The Chairman: I would welcome you discussing the agenda with me at any time, Senator Gauthier. As chairman of the committee, it is my principal responsibility to know what my colleagues wish to discuss and what they think are the priorities. As I said before, I am quite happy to work through a formal process of meeting with the steering committee. You now know the members of steering committee. You can talk to any member at any time about anything you think is relevant.
In terms of priorities, I also want to point out that I have set the honourable senator's item as the second item today for discussion. He may object and believe that it should be the first item up for discussion. If the committee thinks his item should go first, I would be happy to deal with it first. I felt that because a number of senators who are not normally here were invited to be here -- Senator Robichaud and Senator Kinsella -- that on the balance of convenience it would be useful to hear from them first and then we could organize the discussion and move on to your item. Are you satisfied that we should proceed in that way? Is it agreed?
The agenda item relating to the order of reference with respect to the structure of committees was proposed by Senator Robichaud and seconded by Senator Kinsella. I would like the mover and the seconder to give us, as specifically as they can, the nature of the issue that they wish this committee to address. We have a checklist of items. Specifically, what are the concerns that give rise to this motion? Give us, as clearly as possible, what issues you would like us to address, rather than just the checklist of things to look at.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you for inviting us here to speak to the motion that I have brought forward and that has been seconded by Senator Kinsella.
Certainly no one will be able to criticize you for dragging your heels on this motion, particularly in that a timetable is included for having the committee report to the Senate.
The motion reflects a consensus among the leadership on both sides of the chamber. In the past, we were dealing with two motions and we had difficulty agreeing on matters. I want to thank the senators on the other side for their cooperation in helping to devise the motion now on the table, a motion which touches on a number of issues which we would like to revisit at this time.
I say "revisit" because this is not the first time that the committee has examined various committee matters such as available human resources, scheduling, committee mandates and membership.
These various items were in fact covered in the first motion which was withdrawn. For many reasons, we feel that they need to be examined again. You may choose to do so in conjunction with your review of other issues that will likely be raised by other senators and committee members.
As I was saying earlier, this is not the first time that the committee has focussed on this question. Back in 1994, senators examined this matter with a view to producing a report. At the time, Senator Robertson polled senators in an attempt to get their ideas and suggestions on how committees should be structured.
We even went so far as to strike a sub-committee which was supposed to produce a report. Although the motion was debated on a number of occasions, nothing ever transpired. I cannot speak for the senators in opposition, but I would like us to agree on a process which, although it may not resolve this issue once and for all, may serve as a blueprint for committee work.
The motion asks you to consider five points. This first is human resources. Like other institutions, the Senate must contend with administrative constraints. We need assurances that staff is available so that committees can do their work properly. It would be pointless to create 25 committees and to expect to receive all of the services need to ensure that operations flow smoothly.
Secondly, we must examine the scheduling of committee meetings. This matter has come up for discussion quite often. As a rule, the Senate sits three days a week, usually on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Committees also meet three days a week, which limits the length of meetings. Some committees meet on Mondays, but as a rule, meetings are squeezed in over this three-day period. Incidentally, this affects the sitting hours of the Senate. Wednesday's sitting is referred to as the "short day" so that committees have an opportunity to meet. We are asking you to examine these constraints to see if a schedule providing for greater flexibility could be introduced. Senators would then no longer have to choose, as I had to, between several committees that all meet at the same time.
The Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, as well as the Agriculture Committee on which I used to serve both met at the same time. Since both committees were equally important, I felt that I was being remiss in my duty when I was unable to attend a particular committee meeting.
We need to devise a schedule that would allow senators to choose the committees on which they wish to serve and to attend meetings. This is not a reflection on anyone. I am simply stating my position, based on my experiences as a member of various committees.
Three other points are addressed in this motion. Several senators have proposed changes to committee mandates. When the motion was adopted last week by the Senate, and even prior to that time, some senators rose to point out that the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology had a mandate to examine aboriginal affairs whereas the Senate also had an aboriginal peoples committee. It was suggested that consideration of matters concerning aboriginal peoples be confined to the aboriginal peoples committee.
The mandate of the Committee on Foreign Affairs specifically includes relations with the Commonwealth. Some senators have suggested that this committee be more inclusive and include La Francophonie. Others have further suggested that we broaden the committee's mandate beyond relations with the Commonwealth and La Francophonie to include all of Canada's foreign relations.
We like to emphasize the work done by Senate committees. They help to enhance the national profile of senators. While we are not necessarily calling for committees to travel across the country, committee travel is a good way to impart to the public information about issues or legislation before committee for consideration.
The final point concerns committee membership. I raised this point when I tabled my first motion respecting membership and this led to a method of determining how many members committees should have on average. The study revealed that the average membership was slightly below the maximum desired number.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to look at adjusting these figures, although we do not expect all committees to have the same number of members. Membership could vary, depending on the workload of the committee.
We would like the chairman of this committee, following some discussions, to issue a report before October 31, 2001. We have called for a timetable because we would like this issue to be settled once and for all.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Robichaud.
I think the best order of procedure would be to hear from Senator Kinsella, and then we will take some questions.
Senator Kinsella: Senator Robichaud has provided a good outline of the concern that we have as respective house managers. Quite frankly, this issue is of a type that cannot be settled effectively or amicably in the chamber. This issue needs to be concluded in the committee.
Many new elements, for the good, have been raised in the debate we have had over the last little while in the chamber, and we think that most of the elements that senators have raised are on the table.
We are hopeful that this committee will make an effort to resolve the question and will use some imagination and creativity to come up with a consensus report -- that is, a whole new committee structure that speaks not only to Parliament but also to the machinery of government in the year 2001.
When our committee structure is compared to the machinery of government today and to the committee structure in the 1960s when the fundamental model was put together, the whole machinery of government has changed. As Senator Robichaud has indicated, we would like to see this committee reflect on the issue of time slots between Tuesdays and Thursdays. That is the time period within which the committees have been working. Also, how many spots are there? The committee should also reflect upon the physical facilities and the human resources available to us. For example, how many clerks do we have available? How many reporters are available? How many interpreters are available? Those objective technical considerations might help the committee to determine the machinery part of our committee structure and the numbers of committees flowing from those considerations. With committees, the mandate would be defined in contemporary terms by the number of senators on given committees.
From my perspective, it is important for this committee to make an effort to solve this problem and to approach it with the openness and the creativity that is here in this room. I think the issue can be solved. The only restraints are the physical and the resource considerations. It would be exciting to keep an eye on the new machinery of government so that our committees can relate on the content side of its work to the real world of how government is structured. The structure has changed radically from the time when the current committee system was put together.
Senator Robichaud has touched on our efforts to outline this issue so the committee can begin its work. We would like to see the issue concluded not in the long-term, but to have it resolved by mid-fall at the latest.
The Chairman: Would you like this committee to take into account the comparative size of the government side and the opposition side? Is that one of the items we should address?
Senator Kinsella: The number of committees and the number of members.
The Chairman: The absolute number of committees?
Senator Kinsella: I think the proportion issue would be best left to tradition and the channels where it has worked well in the past.
The Chairman: I am happy to have that advice.
Senator Gauthier: Senator Lynch-Staunton disputed a letter some months ago.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: I took it up as an interesting challenge and I answered Senator Lynch-Staunton's request. I think we should take that into consideration and ask the senator if he has any comments on his letters, which I thought were rather interesting. Some of the comments made to him were about the size of committees, about the number of committees and about every issue that we have touched on this morning. I think it is important that some of us have an exchange on this question.
The Chairman: I would welcome your comments, Senator Lynch-Staunton.
Senator Gauthier: There are twelve standing committees, three standing joint committees, one subcommittee, one special committee and two new committees. We now have nineteen committees in total. That number is way too high.
The Chairman: That is coming to a conclusion ahead of a number of other members of the committee, Senator Gauthier. We will circulate a document that contains quite a bit of information relating to the issue of the number of committees, when they sit and so on.
Senator Di Nino: I want to comment on the statement of Senator Gauthier, but is this the appropriate time? We only have 20 or 25 minutes left today. If we are to set up a hearing process to deal with this issue, we may want to ask Senator Lynch-Staunton not only to give his own wisdom but also to report on the commentary by colleagues on both sides.
The Chairman: I will leave it to Senator Lynch-Staunton as to whether he wishes to give us a headnote of his thinking, and then he can come back with a more substantial comment later.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I do not think it is necessary to for me to share my views on this matter. I sent them in writing and I have received some good replies. Not all replies are unanimous or supportive, but they all show some concern about the committee structure as it presently stands. I am glad that has led directly or indirectly to the order of reference. I am hoping that we will get down to work as soon as possible and establish a work plan as soon as possible. Our side is available during the summer. We hope that the hearings will not wait until we come back in the fall but that we will start as soon as possible. We hope to hear from the Committees Directorate and from chairmen, deputy chairmen, clerks and those right in the middle of the subject. We want know this subject as well as anyone, and if need be we will go outside. I think we have enough brain matter, knowledge and ability to resolve the situation, if there is one, amongst ourselves.
Meanwhile, I wish to thank all those who did reply to the memorandum that I sent around. When the time comes, I would be happy to build on it and share whatever views are helpful to the committee in terms of this reference.
The Chairman: We will come back to Senator Lynch-Staunton in the order in which the steering committee determines is appropriate.
I would like to bring to the attention of honourable senators the circulation of a document stating that there presently exist eighteen committees, plus one subcommittee. This includes three joint committees, plus one special committee.It lists the number of members, the government, opposition and independent presence on those committees, and the vacancies. One committee, the Library of Parliament Joint Committee, has yet to be constituted. The document also indicates the conflicts that the clerk has been able to determine from a review of membership of the committees and the timing of committee meetings.
The second document outlines the sitting schedule of Senate committees. Perhaps it would be useful to those honourable senators who are not on this committee and to others who are interested in the subject if we appended these documents to the report of this committee so that they are printed in today's proceedings. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
(For text of documents, see Appendix A)
Senator Pitfield: My question is simple and I hope not too repetitive of what has already been discussed. Is the question of committees an administrative issue or a political one?
The Chairman: The other option is that it is a mixed question -- political and administrative.
Senator Pitfield: Yes, but I would imagine that when the question is posed, we hope to have an exit. I think that there is a better chance for an exit if the question is considered to be either political or administrative, but not both.
The Chairman: I do not know what other answer any member of this committee would give, but I would approach it from the point of view of efficiency and administration, not ignoring the fact that there may be some political values to be contributed by some members along the way.
Senator Murray: I tend to take the contrary position, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I expected that.
Senator Murray: I think it is a political issue in the large sense -- what committees we ought to have in order to do our job as a second chamber of Parliament and in what areas they should operate.
The reason for my intervention now is really to ask why Senator Kinsella told us that our mandate is to figure out a way to do the committee work between Tuesday morning and Thursday afternoon? Why are we so constrained?
We come to the political conclusion that, in order to do our job properly as a second chamber of Parliament, we must have a certain number of committees operating in certain areas, and that means that we must have a five-day week or a four-day week. I do not think we should be constrained from the outset by an instruction -- if that is what it is -- to decide, but then fit it into a three-day week.
The Chairman: You will notice in the table that the two new committees, defence and human rights, are indicated as occupying slots on Monday.
Senator Murray: That is a start, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I do not think that anyone, unless I hear otherwise, objects to our considering the entire workweek as a possible format for committee sittings. There will be suggestions as to how we can narrow that concept as we go along.
Senator Joyal: It might not surprise members that I want to emphasize some of the points made by Senator Murray.
The Chairman: Is that political in a non-partisan sense?
Senator Joyal: It is cross-border.
The reference given to us in last week's motion is appropriate to the understanding of the role of the Senate and especially of the committee's work. We believe that committees are where the work of the Senate is at its best. Our committee work distinguishes us as a complementary note to the committees of the House of Commons. When we question ourselves on the committee structure, we should address certain priorities.
The first priority should be the legislative agenda, which is one of the primary roles of the chamber.
The second priority is to remember that we are the chamber that must keep the government accountable. That means that the committee's work must give priority to the annual reports that are tabled in Parliament and are not acted upon. The way in which we deal with the Estimates, in my view, is something that needs to be revised because it is one area where we can exercise the scrutiny that we have as a chamber.
The third priority is that we are a chamber based on regions; thus, certain issues are entrenched in the structure of the Senate. There is no doubt that linguistic rights is one of those entrenched issues. If the structure of Quebec's representation in the Senate is based on districts, it is because two linguistic groups were recognized for participation in a different manner than the other regions of Canada.That just illustrates the point. In other words, regional issues and minority issues must be in the forefront of the preoccupation of the committee.
Of course, then there is the role that the Senate, through the years, has taken on inherently -- that is, the study of policy. That is where we feel that we can distinguish ourselves from the House of Commons because we are policy-oriented, to a point, in our committee work. We must take that into account when we deal with our roles and responsibilities.
Finally, there is the overall role of supremacy of Parliament in the context of delegation to parliamentary responsibility, to international agencies and other bodies. That is an issue that we must deal with in the future, and I feel that the Senate should have a very specific role in that respect. We are the chamber that is characterized as having the opportunity and the constitutional memory.
In restructuring the committees, we must have a good understanding of where we fit in the overall picture of Parliament. The reference that we received last week provides a good opportunity for us to understand where we should place our priorities.
I will be candid with committee members. In respect of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I say this with the greatest and fullest respect for my colleagues who sit on that committee, it seems to be an "exotic" committee that travels and deals with the issues of one country versus the others. However, is this really the priority that the committee should address? It is important that a committee have the capacity to take on certain initiatives, but on the other hand, the committee should never lose sight of its essential function within the parliamentary context.
We cannot give importance and precedence to the work of certain committees over others because of a question of manning the committees. We all know that the issue of opposition senators manning committees will only grow in two or three years. There are so many committees that they have to sit at the same time, and there are only so many senators available at the same time. That is the reality of any Parliament or any legitimate chamber. This issue must be considered. As was mentioned, there are practical and administrative aspects to these issues.
We should reflect on how the structure of Senate committees affects the role that we have as a chamber. That is the starting point.
The Chairman: The last three speakers have addressed a much larger question: What is the mandate of the Senate? Logically, then, how do we discharge that mandate through the committee system? This is a big bite, indeed.
Senator Andreychuk: Within the framework of what is the broader role of the Senate, we should have a process whereby we can begin to address these issues. Thus far, what I have seen has been piecemeal. There are some myths around, and I will take issue with Senator Joyal. If one looks at the facts, it has not been the Foreign Affairs Committee that has travelled more. Under the stewardship of Senator Stewart, the committee rarely travelled. Rather, other committees have travelled continuously and spent the money. A myth has grown that the Foreign Affairs Committee is the exotic committee that travels.
The other issue before us is that there are conflicts. We must look at the issues and familiarize ourselves with the background information. Attendance has been very low on certain committees. I refer to the Aboriginal Committee, where it is very difficult to get a quorum.
All of these issues must be addressed. Again, up to this point, we have discussed them somewhat piecemeal. I am interested in having a starting point and looking at all of the issues. I think that under the framework of what role for the Senate is appropriate, we can gather more information.
These two documents alone can be misleading if we do not get some of the attendance figures and a cost factor. The steering committee should set up a process of hearings where we can address these issues more systematically. We probably would not be that far apart if we could then specify the problems.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier will speak, following which we will move to the item on official languages and spend the rest of our time on that subject.
The steering committee will meet. I have one question. Is October 31 a practical date? Maybe it is, but which year?
Senator Gauthier: I am very impressed with the tone of the debate, and I am very excited that we will be looking at this issue. I want to put two things on the record.
The administrative aspect of those committees, as pointed out by Senator Pitfield, is very important. For example, the House of Commons administers a joint official languages committee. I must admit that we have a set of rules here that is not the same as in the House of Commons. I will not go into detail.
We should also consult with the chairmen of our different standing committees and not leave them out of this study. We should ask for their comments. We must unite certain committees that have a general direction.
The Social Affairs Committee can be perceived as the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. We should be addressing a lot of issues in terms of the Senate's mandate being different from that of the House of Commons, which is politically partisan. My experience here in the last five years or six years is that the House is indeed political, but we are not so partisan. I like the fact that we do much better work.
The Chairman: This is a very good start. We were looking for guidance as to what this committee feels is the nature and scope of the reference. We want to start with the mover and seconder and then test ourselves. The ambition of this committee on this topic is huge. I welcome it, but during the discussion, I was revising my sense of the time that this particular item on our agenda would take.
I would suggest to my colleagues on the steering committee that we have a meeting. Is 5 o'clock today acceptable to Mr. O'Brien's office? Yes.
Senator Pitfield: I hope this will not be the last discussion before we tackle the mountain peaks because there are methods of approaching these topics, as you know well from your years in the government, that will allow us to open up a subject in committee. Pre-emptive strikes can also derail discussion, and I would be regretful if we found the latter excluded the former. That does happen. When we are answering a technical question or one on policy, there is a tendency at first blush to say that the question should be addressed by mortal men. We attempt to contain it and ensure that it does not get out of hand. The result is that whole big pieces are never discussed.
The Chairman: I think we have agreed that we will proceed in a Cartesian fashion from the large question down through the various topics. The large question is this: Senate committees for what kind of a Senate? Senator Murray put the cat amongst the pigeons on this one. It will be interesting to see what flies.
Senator Kroft: Pigeons are more likely to fly than cats.
The Chairman: I don't know. This is the Senate, after all.
I would like to turn to item No. 3, the motion of Senator Gauthier. I introduced a suggestion to which I noted a reaction on the part of Senator Gauthier. Perhaps I could give him time now to present his view.
Senator Gauthier: The motion was presented and adopted by the Senate and deferred to this committee on February 20, 2001. I have been on this committee since the beginning. The House of Commons had a standing committee called the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I chaired that committee, and we received a variety of witnesses. Even the Prime Minister would come to defend his Estimates at the appropriate time.
With time, we evolved into the Standing Committee on Official Languages. In 1979, Senators Joyal, De Bané and Gauthier went to see the Prime Minister and asked him to set up a joint committee. We thought that the Senate should be involved because the issues were minority rights and language rights. Mr. Clark accepted the proposition. Politically, he did not have to time to put it into effect because he lost power on December 13, 1979. After that, Mr. Trudeau said that we would set up a joint committee. However, he said that he was not too enthusiastic because he wanted to present some constitutional amendments. That business took us two years. There was very little activity on official languages at that time.
The committee came back and took some action. Senator Murray and I co-chaired the joint committee. We tabled reports asking for some consideration of important issues dealing with minority rights, and we had some success. We did not achieve 100 per cent success, but we got some initiatives started. The committee was hard-working.
After the 1984 election, the committee lost interest for some reason. We had difficulties getting the chairperson to call meetings. He was a Tory, and he said to me that we would review the act in the middle of 1988, which we did.
At that time, we took an interest and conducted a review. Nothing happened in terms of the joint committee. The Senate had no official language committee until we invited them to join with us.
Now is the time for us to get our own standing committee of the Senate. I am not talking about abolishing the Official Languages Joint Committee. I think that it should continue to meet under certain circumstances. For example, both committees can look at the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Several other issues could be looked at given the fact there are different agendas. We have a preoccupation with substantive matters. In my experience, the House has an interest in political matters.
I got disgusted with what I call the piecemeal operation in the House of Commons. One party wants to give the responsibility to the provinces; another does not want to be bothered. They are the official opposition, and they get the first kick at the can. We sometimes had to listen for an hour and a half to some guy asking about the cost of bilingualism in Vernon, B.C. We are not talking seriously about official languages with that kind of nitpicking.Then the Bloc wades in, because they are also part of the opposition, and they get into how badly the Official Languages Act is applied and how sloppy governments are with the act. It is a negative and discouraging process.
I suggested that the Senate should have its own standing committee, not a big one, but a small one. I circulated my proposal, and all honourable senators should have received a copy of it. It says that the committee should be comprised of five to seven members. I think such a committee would be very workable. It would be an interesting process to look at the issue of official languages. I do not wish to repeat what is in the paper. I believe you have all had time to read it.
We have the expertise in this house. We have the institutional memory in this place, something that they do not have in the other place, I am sorry to say. Some great senators have been involved in and around this issue, but they became disinterested in the matter because it was a partisan issue and a waste of time. My proposal is simply to establish a Senate committee.
The Official Languages Act states clearly that there may be a standing committee of the Senate, a standing committee of the House and a joint committee. We can have our own committee and they can have their committee. We can also have a joint committee. The argument will be that we are duplicating what the House is doing. We do that all the time in the Foreign Affairs Committee and in other committees.
The language issue is of regional interest, and we should have a standing committee of the Senate look into the question. I think we can put the other place to shame if we can get it to work.
The Chairman: The motion, in fact, refers to seven members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Senator Kinsella: Does the Official Languages Act apply to the House of Commons and the Senate?
Senator Gauthier: No, it does not. It does not apply to what we call "federal institutions" in terms of excluding the Library of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate; it applies to everything else.
Senator Stratton: I wish to emphasize that Senator Gauthier's request be included in the first item of the agenda.
The scope of this committee's work is very large. In defining the role of the Senate's committees, perhaps we should think of it as a two-track process -- one track that looks at that overall issue and a second track that looks at the practical aspects of our committee structure. Otherwise, this is a never-ending issue. We could go on forever.
Senator Gauthier: I will be very candid. Just today, Mr. Boudria, the House Leader in the other place, was hesitant to accept the idea of two committees because <#0107> and I can say this publicly -- he does not feel they have the human resources. I am talking about MPs who have an interest in the matter. He gave me a note today, which I can probably read to you.
[Translation]
I have indicated to Senator Carstairs that I would be prepared to go along with the idea of a Senate Committee on Official Languages, provided the Joint Committee is not abolished.
Signed Don Boudria.
[English]
Mr. Boudria finally accepted something that I have been trying to get him to accept for the last year. I think that we should proceed with this matter now and accept the principle of a joint committee, subject to whatever review would be required. I do not want to comment on the nature of a review.
The current joint committee has been reconvened. I will tell you now that it will not work, not because of me, but because they have no institutional memory in the other place. They convened a meeting today on a report of the Official Languages Commissioner that deals with CPAC and the House of Commons.
I do not have to tell you what I will do this afternoon. I am not involved in that matter, but there is a court case. Someone in the Atlantic provinces is taking the government to court over CPAC. I do not know of any committee in place other than here or in the House of Commons that can discuss an issue that is before the courts. It is not done. Yet, they call the bloody meeting. I said, "Don't do it." They gave me an agenda. It is stupid.
The Chairman: Let me make clear one point: Parliament is not barred from discussing a subject because it is before the courts. It may decide not to, out of wisdom, but nothing is precluded.
Senator Bryden: It was mentioned that the Official Languages Act states that there can be a Senate committee, a Commons committee and a joint committee. The word "and" is very important, or is the word "or"?
Senator Gauthier: The word is "and."
Senator Bryden: Does the act imply that three committees can operate at the same time?
Senator Gauthier: Yes -- one in the House, one in the Senate and one joint committee.
The Chairman: Is that correct?
Dr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: It is my understanding that the act does not specify a chamber. It talks about a parliamentary committee. That could be a Senate committee, a House committee, or a joint committee in addition to one or both of the others.
Senator Joyal: It does not exclude.
Senator Di Nino: We should verify that.
Senator Bryden: Senator Gauthier, at the risk of being drummed out of the club of which you and I are the only members, having been appointed to the Senate on the same day, you had mentioned that Aboriginal affairs would more appropriately fall under the purview of the Social Affairs Committee. Is that not the case for official languages as well? The same argument that you make in relation to official languages, which is a minority rights issue, applies also to the Social Affairs Committee studying Aboriginal affairs. Presumably, the Aboriginals would make a case for themselves. I think we need to consider our resources in that context.
Senator Prud'homme: I fully agree with what Senator Gauthier said about the role of the Senate. We are here to protect the regions and minorities. To show you the seriousness of this matter, I asked for a list of House of Commons members on the joint committee. To be frank, I was shocked. There are over 60 associate members of the joint committee. How can I take that committee seriously? For example, if Senator Austin, who has the institutional memory, were unable to attend the committee, any one of sixty people on that list could replace him. In my opinion, the Senate is in a position to do a better job.
I might add that the political situation is not as rosy as some people may think. There is a lot of change taking place, and a committee of that kind could do a lot of good.
The Chairman: We will continue with this issue as item No. 1 on the agenda next Wednesday.
The committee adjourned.