THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 28, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 11:10 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules, and to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. Today is Monday, March 28, and our committee is meeting again in a hybrid format.
I will introduce the committee members. For the steering committee, Senator Batters, deputy chair for the Conservative caucus, Senator Lankin, deputy chair for the Independent Senators Group, and Senator Greene, for the Canadian Senate Group.
The other members of the committee present today are Senator Black, from Ontario, Senator Boisvenu, from Quebec, Senator Boniface, from Ontario, Senator Busson, from British Columbia, Senator Cordy, from Nova Scotia, Senator Duncan, from Yukon, Senator Housakos, from Quebec, Senator Massicotte, from Quebec, Senator Moncion, from Ontario, Senator Ringuette, from New Brunswick, and Senator Wells, from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Welcome, everyone.
We have several topics to cover today. The first on the list, of course, is the proposed change to rule 12-2, which concerns the new practices for the election of the Speaker pro tempore.
We discussed this last time. Today, we have the report, which is very short and explains the change.
Are there any comments, or would anyone like to move the adoption of the report?
[English]
Senator Lankin: I am moving adoption of the report. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Senator Batters, did you have a comment, or it was also for the adoption?
Senator Batters: It was for that, but I also wanted to make a comment to thank you for including the paragraph about the secrecy of the ballots. That was an important point that I wanted to raise last week. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I guess the report is adopted. The next step on this subject will be to go to the Senate with our first report.
[Translation]
Thank you, everyone. We will now move on to the second item on the agenda, which concerns consultations on the review of committee mandates.
We have all done consultations within our groups. To summarize, we have divided the changes to be made to committee mandates into two stages. The first is stylistic changes. They do not change the content of the mandates as described in the Rules. They are intended to standardize the descriptions and to ensure that the method chosen for new committees is applied, that is, to provide very brief explanations, with the understanding that, in the Rules, it is the Senate that grants the mandates to committees. So each committee has very specific themes and proposes subjects to the Senate for further study when these subjects are adopted.
The first step, which concerns the standardization exercise, has gone well and does not change anything about the structure. The second step concerns changes that are a little more structural. We asked you to consult on the creation of two committees. Further to the consultations, other changes could be made.
What I am proposing at the moment is to completely divide the two steps. We will focus first on the first step to see if there is consensus and if we can already make the stylistic changes.
[English]
Within the consultation, we will see if there is some consensus on step one. Are there minor changes or things that people wanted to add or change? At this stage, I will see if some hands are raised and what was the result of those consultations.
Senator Lankin: Just comments, Madam Chair, or do you want a motion to put this on the floor?
The Chair: That’s a good idea. Maybe we can put it on the floor now or wait for the comment — if there is no comment.
Senator Lankin: Maybe we’ll wait and see if there are comments.
Our consultation went very well on all of the items. With respect to step one, there were a couple of comments people made as we went through, but I would say more individual than group responses in that by and large the majority of our group supports step one. I don’t need to go on at any length. There is no actual proposed change from that discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin.
Senator Batters: I was wondering, does that mean, then, that with respect to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, was it then agreed by your group, Senator Lankin, that climate change would not be part of the title but it would be part of the mandate of the committee. Is that correct?
Senator Lankin: Yes, that is correct, Senators Batters. The discussion was raised, and it was raised at our last committee meeting too by one of our group members, but people were satisfied in keeping the title shorter and having it in the mandate.
Senator Batters: Okay. That’s great. I wanted to check about that particular one.
Senator Lankin: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. On the progressive group, we did also consult. There were a number of talks and remarks, and some were more substantial. What I suggest is that for the moment — Senator Cordy could add more to what I say — I would propose that we could wait until step two to make some other changes that we heard about. Senator Cordy, would you agree with me on that?
Senator Cordy: Yes, I would agree, and I think everybody went along with step one. There was discussion about step two and that we put that off the table for now and get what’s pretty easy to pass today and then have a longer discussion about adding new committees and that kind of thing.
Senator Greene: I can agree with just about everything everyone has said, but we haven’t had a detailed consultation. I distributed the work to everyone in the group, with the instructions really to read it and look at it and get back to me in about five days. No one did do that, so we have only addressed the issue in a perfunctory way. I see no difficulty with going to step two, where changes conceivably could still be made, of course.
The Chair: Thank you. Good. Maybe we can say that we have some changes that we can make already and uniformize the style of the wording.
Senator Lankin: I move adoption of the report of step one.
The Chair: If everyone agrees, then step one is adopted as a report. Thank you.
Now, we’ll go to step two —
[Translation]
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Madam Chair, I would like to intervene. I will take the text of this table and prepare it as a report, as you approved this morning in relation to the Speaker pro tempore.
The Chair: That’s fine, Adam. Thank you. We’ll continue the discussion with step two, which is a little more complex. For step two, the first suggestion — and maybe other suggestions will be added — is to create two committees, a Standing Senate Committee on Science and Technology and a Standing Senate Committee on Human Resources.
The content for these two committees already exists. It won’t be added to our study. Unfortunately, given that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology are already quite busy with other priorities, this leaves little room for further study of communications, innovation, science and technology, and some human resources issues.
That’s why the suggestion was made to create these two committees. This would lead to changes in the wording of the broken-up committees’ mandate. However, this matter will be discussed later. With respect to the addition of the two committees, the concerns relate to the resources and duties of the senators.
[English]
In the Progressive Senate Group, we had a debate on that, and people said we have to be careful when looking at the tasks of each senator. We need the resources.
In talking with the person responsible for the committees, which is Shaila Anwar, we could probably find places for two new committees, with it being understood that maybe the committees would be made up of nine members, as are the three young committees, which are the Standing Senate Committees on Human Rights, National Security and Defence and Official Languages, and that they meet only once a week. These are the things we have to consider when talking about the creation of those two new committees.
I’ll summarize my thoughts by saying that I think everyone knows that the content of those committees is important. It is already covered by other committees, but they are not covered with official studies because of time constraints and other priorities. That’s why we asked for the creation of those two committees.
[Translation]
I see some hands going up. I’ll give the floor to Senator Batters, Senator Housakos and Senator Cordy.
[English]
Senator Batters: On this particular topic, as I mentioned the last time we were discussing this, I am anxious to hear from those who have been on the committees that deal with these subject areas, because yes, they are important, but so are many others.
I was expressing particular concern about the number of senators that would be required for this. We’re not that large of a body, so if it meant senators need to be on three or four committees routinely, that could be difficult. Finding the time slots could also be difficult, particularly with the hybrid model but even after it’s done. It’s important to find time slots that allow everyone to do as good a job as possible on these committees and to give those subject areas the attention they deserve.
At the same time, I wonder about the resources of the Senate, for example, financial and IT resources. This has been a challenge throughout the last two years specifically, so I wanted to talk about that.
Also, if we’re going to go further down the road on this particular matter, we should have witnesses come before the Rules Committee to talk about these issues, not just a group during a half-hour session making major decisions. We need to have a number of witnesses come before us to see if there is a need for it. There may be some who don’t think this would be a good idea. We need to have a comprehensive discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Batters.
Senator Housakos: I have a couple of comments and questions.
Number one, before you go forward and recommend setting up new standing committees, I think we need to confirm if we actually have the resources and the space on the agenda for these committees to meet.
Number two, I’m also trying to figure out what exactly the problem is we’re trying to fix. I’m a long-standing member of the Transport and Communications Committee, and I can’t recall over the more than a decade I’ve been in the Senate any issues on communications that have fallen by the wayside because we haven’t had the capacity or time to address them.
Question number one, before we go forward, is when will they meet, and question number two is what problem are you trying to fix?
The Chair: Thank you for those questions. Senator Cordy and Senator Busson were part of the committee, along with Senator Griffin and the late Senator Forest-Niesing, that talked about this committee on communications. This is where it comes from. Senator Cordy will talk more about it. Finally, I’m sure that we’ll have witnesses on those issues.
Senator Cordy: That wasn’t what I was going to discuss, but I certainly don’t mind doing that.
One thing we kept hearing over and over in talking to senators specifically was that with transportation and communication, because of what’s happening with technology, both of these issues have advanced at such tremendous speeds that people felt there may be a need to have two separate committees. That’s where that came from. It wasn’t that we just pulled it out of the air. It was responding to a number of comments we heard from senators themselves.
I would like to add to what Senator Batters said. It would be important to have witnesses and to hear specifically about — and Senator Housakos suggested that we talk about how the new committees would fit into our work as senators — the logistical aspects of setting up two more committees. It would be important to look at that.
Part of the logistical issues stem from the fact that the Senate now is quite different than it was 20 years ago in that we had Senate groups of 40-some senators on each side and a few vacancies left. Now, we have 3 groups with fewer than 20 people in them. Putting people on a committee certainly is a concern, because we don’t want people just signing up to be on a committee. We want to make sure they are active members within every committee they’ve signed up for.
I’m not sure whether it would be the Rules Committee that would look at and suggest we have more committees of 9 than we currently have or that we have more committees of 12. I certainly would never suggest that the numbers for the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be reduced, having been on the committee for a number of years and having been the deputy chair. There are so many subcommittees within the Internal Economy Committee that when you sign up for it, you’re not signing up for just one committee. You’re usually signing up for four or five committees within that. That would be something we would have to look at. I guess it would be the Rules Committee, but I’m not sure.
Those are some things we have to look at, but we should be looking at those issues. We should be calling witnesses before the committee to talk about issues that have been raised this morning, legitimate issues, before we charge ahead.
I’m in favour, by the way, of having the extra committees because of the comments we heard from people, but we have to look at the best way forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cordy.
Before I turn to Senator Lankin, let me say that we have with us today Ms. Shaila Anwar, Deputy Principal Clerk, who is in charge of committees. I talked to her and she could answer some questions today. Maybe she can also make a little presentation today, but if she prefers, it could be next week. She is with us today. I will give her the floor a little bit later.
Senator Lankin: I actually look forward to hearing from the head of the clerks on this.
If I could just for a moment talk about the discussion we had, I think it was constructive. I want to divorce that from the issue of resources and the number of senators. I’m going to come back to that in a second. There were a couple of comments about whether technology belonged there or somewhere else, or should communications stay with transport or go somewhere else. In the end, the majority of the conversation really wasn’t about which piece went where. It was satisfying to people to know that we were considering this and that this committee would have a full debate and hear witnesses, et cetera, and be able to speak with Shaila about resources.
I want to come to the issue of resources. When we first began discussing this a couple of meetings ago, the point was made and I think the majority of us who were on the committee and were present at that time felt that we needed to determine at this point what was the next best step for committee structures and that we would then deal with the issue of CIBA and resourcing and that sort of thing. So it’s not to divorce it completely but it’s to say that we have to have our reasons nailed down if we want to create two more committees. We have to have a consensus or an agreement or a vote, however we get to the decision. We have to have a decision on that. We need to, at the same time, be engaging around resources. That is not to say that we would go ahead and establish these committees if we didn’t have the resources but that it could be a vicious circle if we say we wait until CIBA figures out what they’re going to do about hybrid and translators and whatever.
First of all, let me say I agree completely with Senator Batters about bringing forward witnesses. Where does communications belong? Where does technology belong? I’m one who believes very strongly that the Social Affairs Committee has way too much going to it to do an effective job and that it’s important for the issues of science and technology to come out, and then in that does it make sense to put communications with it? Those are the sorts of things I think we need to hear from witnesses about.
I also would like to suggest that the committee formally, if we choose to after this discussion, write to CIBA to say that we are contemplating this, we’re hearing witnesses on it, this is what we believe we can accomplish with the current resources or this is what we need to accomplish, and ask them to begin to examine how they could meet the needs of two more committees if we were to establish them.
I also agree with Senator Batters — it’s a record day, Senator Batters — about the issue of the number of senators. Senator Cordy raised a good point in terms of the size of groups and being able to put resources there. We are awaiting appointments, as we know, so that will ease this a bit, but that’s an always-evolving cycle of people leaving and coming. The numbers of senators could be something that we discuss. It may be the Committee of Selection’s decision in the end, but we could have a discussion of that.
On that, I’m wondering, Madam Chair, whether we might ask the analysts to prepare a report for us sort of looking over the years at the various numbers we have had, increase, decrease, changes, so we get some sense of historically what we’ve been able to accomplish with either fewer senators on a committee or not.
I’ll leave it at that point. Thank you very much.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly appreciate the comments and the discussion that we’re having. Personally, I believe that we are at a time that we need to do a full review of our committees so that the process could be put in place with the next Parliament. We need to review the meeting times and how long we meet. We need to be more efficient. Do we have too many committees? That’s a question we need to look into. Right now, we have many committees that have been the result of past negotiations. Is that the way we want to continue?
I think we are at the point in time where we need to have a very serious review of the entire committee situation, and I believe that we need to strike a subcommittee of the Rules Committee dedicated, for the next year, year and a half, to looking at all the different angles of our committees and report to the full committee. They could meet with the different chairs and deputy chairs of our committees, with the different clerks and so forth.
Ultimately, I think we can probably be more efficient with fewer committees but with a better distribution of the work. We know that there are some fundamental committees that we don’t want to change, like CIBA and National Finance.
The Chair: And Rules.
Senator Ringuette: And Rules, okay. However, I believe that it is time to do a complete review, and we should strike a subcommittee to do that, to have that mandate and to report within a year to the full committee for a full discussion. I think that’s the only way, really, because there are some bits and pieces that we can fix, but there are only so many plasters you can put on a wound. That’s my personal feeling about it. If we review committees, let’s do it and do it well and take the time and see how we can be more efficient. That’s my two cents’ worth.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ringuette. I take it that’s a formal proposition. It’s not formal because you did not formalize it, but perhaps for those who have raised their hand, please say something about this possibility of having a subcommittee of the Rules Committee. We know that any change, even if we have new committees, won’t be in operation until the next session, for all sorts of reasons. Maybe it’s a good idea to take the time and have a thoughtful review of committees. Let’s hear from senators.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have two comments that tie in with Senator Ringuette’s comments. I suggest that you consider merging some of the committees so that the number of committees remains about the same. Some mandates could be added to committees. For example, the Fisheries and Oceans Committee could be merged with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which deals with mining and forestry. These committees aren’t very busy from a legislative standpoint, given the limited number of amendments to the legislation. There are some amendments, but not as many, for example, as for the Social Affairs Committee.
In this review process, if you create a subcommittee, you should try to keep the same number of committees, instead of increasing the number. In addition, other committees have been created by the Senate. I’m sure that you know — I’m just filling in for another senator right now — about the Special Committee on the Arctic and the Special Committee on the Charitable Sector. These very important committees do a great deal of work.
It might be good to see where they could be integrated, possibly into standing committees or sporadic studies needed at certain times.
My second comment — and I’ll put on my hat as chair of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets — concerns the resources needed to run the committees. Right now, the people in place are stretched to their limit. In terms of asking CIBA to look at the topic again, I think that the best approach is to consult with the human resources staff so that they can provide a comprehensive analysis of needs. Prior to that, the number of committees, the time frames and everything else must be established, because the budgets are set. The 2022-23 budget is based on the resources needed for the current committees.
If we want to add committees, these people will need staff should we remain in hybrid mode. If we add committees, we’ll need new clerks and new people. This analysis is more for the 2023-24 budget.
To ensure that this process will work in 2023-24, it must be started and completed in order to be presented in September 2022.
There are also concerns right now about overworked staff, including our clerks and translators and the staff who must perform computer tasks and handle committee logistics. This must be taken into consideration. We need to think about budget cycles, and not about asking CIBA for more money. CIBA will just tell us to make that request in a budget cycle. Those were my two comments, Madam Chair.
[English]
Senator Duncan: My apologies for the camera quality this morning, colleagues. This is the first time I’ve joined from this location. I’m still sorting it out.
The point I wanted to make is this: In addition to the discussion about committees, I would like, if there is a longer study, to add to the agenda the issue of ensuring regional representation or appropriate representation on committees. I raise again the point that I’ve raised on the Senate floor of the National Finance Committee. It’s national in scope, but there’s a lack of representation from throughout the country. I’m the only member of that committee west of Ontario. On a committee such as National Finance, that is critically important.
I believe there should be a broad representation. I’m not sure how we ensure that, but perhaps it should be included in the discussion about setting out committees. I understand that the Senate is national representation, and we come with the view of all of Canada, but I think it’s important that the regional perspective be represented on committees. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Duncan. You can be certain that it will be discussed when we talk about the list of items. There’s an item concerning the selection of members of committees, and the theme of the regional dimension is certainly quite important.
Senator Housakos: The discussion this morning has been interesting.
On the first issue, again, when it comes to capacity, we have seen over the last one and a half to two years that the biggest problem we’re facing is actually having the capacity to do our work with this new virtual hybrid system. For all intents and purposes, the work of the committees has been gutted because we don’t have the capacity to meet with the current number of committees we have in place. Furthermore, during this hybrid and this crisis, we’ve seen the Senate probably — the Senate of the whole, also — sit less than ever before in the history of the Senate.
Now, no one has answered my original question vis-à-vis looking at creating a couple of new committees — the “why.” All I’ve heard so far is that we have more groups than we’ve had before. We have more senators that want to sit on committees. I also understand there are more senators that want chairs and deputy chairs. But if this discussion is just about process, then I think it’s not a fruitful discussion.
The whole issue of committees is that Senate committees have done the most substantive work when it comes to policy. Before we create committees or review the structure of committees, we have to figure out what it is that the current structure isn’t delivering in terms of public policy needs. I think the biggest problem we have to solve is getting back to work. Once we get back to work and actually see how the structure of the committees works, then we can review if there need to be changes, additions, subtractions or realignments.
I don’t disagree with Senator Ringuette when she suggests creating a subcommittee to review the process. However, colleagues, for the last year and a half, the process hasn’t worked because of capacity and, of course, because of the virtual hybrid challenge we face.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Housakos. I’m not an expert in communications, science and technology, but with respect to human resources, I know that we have a lot of issues that we should be able to address. Actually, those issues are within the mandate of Social Affairs. It’s really important to get on our feet from an economic point of view. There are also issues of public policy on the agenda — for example, employment insurance. We also have issues about immigration. We have all sorts of issues concerning human resources. These types of issues cannot be treated because SOCI has a lot on its plate, and it deals a lot with legislation, too. These are the kinds of answers to your “why.”
Senator Greene: I tend to agree with Senator Housakos. I’m not totally convinced that we need new committees. I think one of the things we have to do is to find the sweet spot between the number of committees, length of the meetings, how often they meet or the frequency and the size of the committees. There are a couple of other variables. We need to put all these things in the mix, perhaps assuming at any given time we have 85 to 90 senators available to sit on committees. We’re certainly never at 105 — or very rarely or for long. I appreciate the fact that the needs and issues change. What is a national issue on one day may not be a national issue in another week or in another few months.
We have to put all of these things into a pot, boil them all up and try to come up with an answer that satisfies frequency, size — there are about five variables, anyway — and questions like why all the committees should have two meetings a week. Maybe there should be one. Also, there may be a situation where we should keep some time for committees on an ad hoc basis. If one committee gets bogged down, they could be allowed, within the Rules, to meet a third time in a week without sacrificing meeting times for other committees. All of these things need to be boiled down into a simple answer to all those questions.
Senator Busson: Listening to all of my colleagues and their excellent comments, I’m not sure who coined it or if I have this right, but there is a saying, “Don’t let perfection get in the way of progress.” In my opinion, I think there has been a lot of good comments today, but I think we should take one step at a time. I use that term to say that I believe we should consider our step one plan, as we had put in our agenda, and then, whether it be by a subcommittee, which I’m not sure I’m convinced of, or by some critical discussions within our committee with focused witnesses, get to the points around what new committees we need, if any.
In our group, we had a fulsome discussion about the fact that, as we go forward, given the unemployment issues in this country, immigration, human migration generally with the things that are happening around the world, and with refugees, et cetera, human resources is such an important part of the future of our country. We don’t have a committee around that. I’m thinking that if there is going to be one new committee, we have to address human resources in this country in a fulsome way.
I do support moving forward with step two, whether it be witnesses — I think witnesses would be very important. But I would like to see step one achieved before we move on. I’m impatient because I’m on the wrong side of 70, but I would like something done in this committee in the near future to at least modernize what we have. Thank you.
Senator Batters: First of all — and somebody can correct me if I’m wrong — I think it was Senator Moncion who brought up the Arctic and charitable sectors, and both of those committees were just limited time committees. I believe their mandates have both been concluded and they no longer exist.
I agree with Senator Ringuette’s comment that I think we should probably be looking at fewer committees, not just more, and maybe more than just two need to be lessened. I agree with the idea about merging and that sort of thing. That could be a good idea.
I’m not sure if we need to have a subcommittee to review those types of things. I mean, usually a subcommittee is formed when the work of the regular committee is so onerous that you don’t have time to deal with a particular matter so you send it off to a subcommittee. Here, I think we probably do have time to deal with this sort of thing, and I think it would be something that would benefit from the full committee hearing from witnesses and those types of things on that type of review. It probably is a good time to have that sort of a review.
At the same time, I also agree when Senator Housakos said that we haven’t been in a normal committee structure for two years. Especially since there are now a number of senators who have never been part of a normal committee structure, or very just for a very short time, maybe we should have a bit of getting back to normal first. Hopefully, that will be soon, where we will be in person and not in this sort of format. Basically, most committees have had their work at least halved, and some more than that. The Legal Committee, for many years, always had to meet twice a week, and we have only been meeting once a week for most of that two-year time frame.
With respect to what Senator Lankin was indicating about going to CIBA to get them prepared — we may need to create two new committees, and how they can look at this and that sort of thing — usually, CIBA will want a lot more detail than just a plan for a what-if eventuality. I think we would need to be a little further down the road before we did that sort of thing.
Another point that I wanted to raise is that, to add new committees, not only do we have the resources of the Senate and all that sort of thing, but also interpreters. Interpreters have been one of the biggest challenges that we have had throughout the last two years because interpretation during this type of hybrid system or when it’s only virtual is much more difficult on interpreters. That’s been an Ottawa-wide problem. The House of Commons is having this problem and we’re having this problem. We want to have really good interpretation to meet all of our requirements, and there have been many health challenges and other types of things that have been as a result of that. Those are my comments on that. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: This has been an excellent discussion. I think some really good points have been raised on all sides of the issues.
I agree that I don’t really see, at this point, the need for a subcommittee. I do think that perhaps the steering committee can look at all of the issues that were raised today and put them in an organized fashion and look at how we are moving forward. I know that, for the past two years, we haven’t had normal Senate sittings. We certainly haven’t had normal committee meetings. We have had committees meeting once a week, when in the past they have been twice a week. It’s been rare to have a Monday morning committee meeting for me in Nova Scotia, and Friday committee meetings. They would not be the norm, but I don’t think that prevents from us moving forward and examining how things should be. I think steering could look at all of the points that were raised today — really good points — and organize them in some sort of way that we could all take part.
I would prefer, as a committee member, to be part of hearing the witnesses and not having only a subcommittee hearing from them. I would like to hear them. I like when we invite witnesses to come before us. We’re pretty specific in what we want them — not to tell us, but the area in which we would prefer to have them comment, so we can deal with different issues for different witnesses. In some cases, some witnesses may be able to deal with more than one thing.
That’s how I feel. I think that the points that have been raised today have been really good. People have really thought about moving forward. The question has been raised about whether we have to increase committees, reduce committees or maintain the status quo. I would like a witness to talk to us about those kinds of things, because things have changed over the years. Somebody said earlier that what is really important in 2022 may not be an issue in 2025.
We have certainly identified in our work on the working group that some committees have a huge amount of work. I’ll use the Social Affairs Committee as an example. Some areas within their mandate are not being covered as much as other areas because in addition to all of the areas in which they would like to do studies, they have been bombarded with legislation over the past few years. Saying that they are not dealing with everything is not a criticism. It’s just that they have an exceptional amount of work to do. I’m sure there are other committees that would be similar.
I would like steering to look at all the issues that were raised today, focus on them and then say, these are the steps. I don’t think anybody imagines that this would be something that we would finish in a couple of months, but I think we have to have a starting point and move forward. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cordy. These are useful comments because I think the steering committee is also eager to work and the subject is so important that I can understand that everyone wants to hear what witnesses have to say.
Senator Lankin: Generally, I agree with most of what has been said.
Senator Housakos, I did respond to you about the need for looking at other committees with respect to the workload at SOCI. The answer isn’t obviously only just a new committee. It could be the merging of other committees. It could be changing things around.
The need for a study is important. I also firmly agree with the need to have a focused place to discuss human capital issues and a number of the underpinnings in terms of jobs and the economy.
In terms of the process going forward, I very much appreciate Senator Cordy’s suggestion that the steering committee bundles together all of these issues and look at what makes sense going forward.
As for the discussion of whether it is a subcommittee or the full committee, I can hear there is a consensus that people would like to have this before the full committee. Steering is going to have to think through the list of items that have been submitted and how we prioritize bringing items forward in between scoping, setting up and calling witnesses for the other committee. It may be that we rotate between items.
I want to point out that the committees, committee structure and mandates have been studied at least twice, if not three times, in the six years that I’ve been in the Senate. It was not at the Rules Committee. Senator Tkachuk led one that went nowhere. The process that started off with Senator Massicotte, Senator Busson and representatives from all groups made some progress and then developed a subcommittee. That subcommittee consulted everybody it brought it. I wasn’t part of those committees so I haven’t heard all of that, but I trust my colleagues too that a lot of work has gone into this. The thought of sitting for a year to two years looking at this, Madam Chair, with all respect, when there are other things we need to address, seems excessive. However, once we get into it, I might be proven wrong and I might change my mind about this.
The bottom line of what I want to say is there are a number of items for us to progress on. I think we should continue, through steering, to prioritize items and bring items forward that we can either decide and move on or decide and dispense, one way or the other, however the committee chooses to deal with that. If we start the work on scoping this at steering, we can bring back a full proposal that we give consideration to how we can accomplish forward work on that and make use of all the work that has already been done and not throw it out again. We have at least two people on this committee who will make sure of that, along with some of the staff, like Louise who works in my office now who was part of supporting that work, who I think will make sure that we don’t drop this and not get it done.
Those are my comments at this point in time. Subject to what else is to be said, I think it should be referred to steering and we should move along and determine if there are other items we should be discussing today.
Again, I’m getting some update from Shaila. We have had this whole conversation and haven’t heard from her yet. We should proceed, but we should make room for Shaila to talk about resources in general. From our perspective, that’s an important issue that bears on committees working now and in the near future as we determine whether hybrid remains with us or not. I would like to make sure today we get a chance to hear from Shaila.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin. You read my mind. I was just thinking that, after the round table — we’ll be hearing from Senator Ringuette last — we could refer to the list to see all the topics for discussion. We’ll also conclude with Shaila Anwar, who will make some introductory remarks. Perhaps she’ll want to talk to us in more detail about certain themes, such as the number of meetings and the number of people needed for each committee.
Before we proceed, Senator Ringuette, the floor is yours.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
I am still proposing a subcommittee because, at two hours per week of meetings with Rules in this hybrid situation, there is no way that the work that needs to be done in this committee review can be done. There are more issues to be dealt with at Rules than what I’m proposing as a committee. It’s as simple as asking, “Should human rights be included with foreign affairs?” These questions have to be asked, and we cannot say, “Well, we will hear from witnesses.” Most of us have been around the committees and working on the different committees for quite a while now. I believe that before we have witnesses, we need to have some kind of a proposal to put forward. I don’t want the Rules Committee to be bogged down with this major work that has to be done. Of course, it has to be involved, but it is, from my perspective, a major undertaking while we have other items that also need to be addressed.
I understand that most members would like to be involved; so be it. But I still strongly believe that other issues also require our attention at Rules to modernize and put our new practices in the Rules. That’s why I’m still proposing that we have a subcommittee of at least five that could meet for two hours at a time that will be still in a hybrid situation. There is a lot of background work and thoughtful work that needs to be done before we ever have witnesses to comment on any kind of proposal.
I leave it up to the majority to decide whether we have a subcommittee, but I want to reiterate that it is not normal that the Senate of Canada does not have a human capital committee given all the human capital issues that are involved in our economy and in our society. That is not normal.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ringuette. You have been heard. We’ll continue with Senator Housakos and Senator Batters. We can then proceed with the list before us and listen to Shaila Anwar’s introductory remarks.
[English]
Senator Housakos: Colleagues, we have been having a challenge to get our regular committees to meet in the regular slots. Do you think by setting up a subcommittee, where you will need grid requirements and services, you will be able to ameliorate the problem? Colleagues, this committee itself does not meet as much as it should. My Transport and Communications Committee, which has an important study going on, cannot meet twice a week. There is no room to have a subcommittee, even if this committee wanted to, and if we created another subcommittee, we would just add to the logjam.
Senator Batters: I have pretty much the same sort of comment, and I wanted to point out that that would have to have a subcommittee. We would need a time slot created, which I believe probably the Selection Committee might have some involvement with. We would have interpretation issues, which have been a constant challenge, and would just add to that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
We have many questions in front of us. I want to go through the list to have your feelings about it or any questions. It’s not a question of going through it and making decisions. It’s just that I want to make sure that everyone understands what could be a road map for this committee for the weeks, months and for the fall ahead.
For the immediate agenda, I think we will go back to the steering committee, but before we start with the list, conclude for the next meeting and go on the revision of mandates, which is step two, I will invite Shaila to say a few words. Maybe we will have time to add more after we go through the list, because she may have other comments. On this question of a subcommittee, she may have some light to put on the issue in front of us.
Shaila Anwar, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senators, for inviting me to join you today. It was a very interesting discussion, with a lot of different parts. I’ve been taking notes. I don’t have all the answers today, but perhaps I can put forward a few other elements that might be worth considering as you go on in your deliberations.
Many of you have spoken about the schedule. Right now, we’re dealing with a hybrid schedule, which reflects the current reality, and we have our old in-person schedule, which is how things used to be. Depending on how the committee makes recommendations going forward, there is a lot of room to change the schedule. If we try to keep the schedule the way it was, it would be a bit of a challenge to accommodate additional committees, but if there is flexibility and a willingness to — I won’t say blow up the schedule — but really re-examine how the schedule is organized, that would, in turn, have an impact on resources as well.
I will give you a small example. I know several senators mentioned certain committees. We had 10 committees, I believe, that had two time slots per week and about six that either met once a week by choice or they were only scheduled once a week. Are there ways to change the schedule so that there are fewer committees that meet twice, but maybe they meet for a little bit longer? That is among the things that could be looked at and that, in turn, would have an impact on resources. And I’m talking outside of the hybrid situation.
In terms of how to determine which committees should meet twice and which should meet once but longer, again, to me, there is a certain amount of choice involved for what a committee wants to study when they are doing a special study. When a committee is studying legislation, there are other forces at play that require a committee to meet and report by a certain date. Those committees might need a bit more flexibility.
If it would be at all helpful to the committee, we do keep stats for the number of hours committees meet, and that is broken down by committee and by subject — general subject matter, orders of reference, et cetera. It’s possible for us to look back five years and know that a committee spent X amount of hours studying bills and another spent X amount of hours doing special studies. We would be happy to provide that to the committee, if you think that would be useful.
In terms of resources, I think Senator Moncion mentioned the process. I can discuss this with your clerk, Adam, and with your analysts, but it might be helpful to try to organize your study in such a way that you deal with things in order. There are certain things about which we need decisions from senators before we can go to the next step. The conversation about resources needs to part of your considerations, but it would come a bit later, because deciding on what committees you want would be the role for this committee. Resources would be something where we, as a directorate, would go to a different committee to ask for. We would predicate any demand for extra resources based on what decisions were taken by the Senate about the number of committees.
In terms of pressures that we have on our schedule and resources right now, I would say that subcommittees — and when I say subcommittees, I include steering committees in that as well, because steering committees, as subcommittees, sometimes require resources. Right now, the schedule is very tight in terms of offering those resources.
Also, the chamber hours have changed since the hybrid motion was adopted a year and a half or two years ago. The chamber sitting until 9 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays is a feature that has come about because of hybrid sittings. On Tuesdays, we used to normally have three committees that sat when the Senate rose at 5 or 6 o’clock in the evening, so we have lost the Tuesday time slots completely, which is one of the reasons why we have had this challenge in finding hours. The overall service time for our support services has also increased for the chamber hours, so that’s where committees have been most acutely affected.
There is also an increase in the number of caucus meetings because we have more caucuses. I’m not suggesting there should be fewer or there should be fewer caucus meetings, but that’s just to give you an idea that caucus meetings have also affected the availability of resources.
One final point for consideration would be when the committee would be looking to implement any changes. Committees have already started this session. I know it’s at the beginning stages, but committees have their mandates, members and time slots. Some have decided on short-term and long-term studies, but when you would look at changing some of these mandates would probably be something that is worth a bit of consideration. Sometimes changing things in midstream can create other challenges.
Those are some of the larger points I wanted to make. I’m happy to follow up with the steering committee of this committee, or with the clerk. Also, if you would like me to prepare anything specific with regard to statistics or information, please let me know, and I’m happy to oblige.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That is very useful. I know that from the annual or sessional report, there is a lot of data, especially if we go back to the normal time that we could gather. I think that would be useful for every senator to have in mind when we will study this item.
Senator Ringuette: I have some questions for Ms. Anwar.
I would certainly like to have the statistics for the last five years in regard to this particular committee, the Rules Committee, which I have been a part of, to see how many times it met and the work it produced, as well as with all the other committees. Looking at the data could be very revealing.
I believe CIBA has six subcommittees. I would like to understand the resources involved in those six and if those six are truly needed. The National Defence Committee has the permanent Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, which I find is the right move to make.
I understand that right now, with the hybrid situation, there might be an issue of resources, but I still believe that when this committee considers the needed full-fledged review of the committee structure, looking at time slots and a more normal situation, never mind the hybrid situation but a normal situation so that it can be implemented in the next Parliament, I think it’s very important financially for the Senate and for the efficiency of the Senate.
That said, I have two questions: Can you, yes, send us the statistics for the last five years on the different committees? Second, could you also provide us the information in regard to CIBA having six subcommittees and what is the necessity of that compared to us maybe not having access to the resources to have a subcommittee to do substantial work too?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ringuette.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar, I imagine that you have taken note of these questions. We can deal with them, address them and come back with answers at the next meeting.
I can see that time is running out. I want to poll the committee members on the more detailed list of topics to see whether they’re interested in a specific theme. I’ll start with the detailed list of topics.
You received a document prepared with the help of the clerk of the committee, Adam Thompson, but also my office and parliamentary counsel, Ermioni Tomaras, who took the time to provide details on the proposed topics.
[English]
Let me say that, for the moment, this is a working document. It’s not confidential necessarily, but it’s not in its final format. When I have received your comments, perhaps we will make some corrections. For instance, when it is more formalized, maybe we will take out the names of the senator who proposed the subject because it would become more of a general working document.
We have tried to put together subjects that were proposed on different themes. The first theme is the sitting of the Senate.
[Translation]
Different senators proposed that we look at the following themes. We established the order of the themes and the groups with no particular logic in mind.
The first theme concerns prayers. It was suggested by Senator Duncan.
[English]
The idea here is to consider changing the prayer to reflect a more inclusive, modern approach, reflective of Canada and Canadians, looking at other legislatures for inspiration, such as in Ontario and Yukon.
[Translation]
This matter concerns the Speaker of the Senate.
[English]
We need to consult with the Speaker, because it is more of his own prerogative, and I didn’t do that yet. I will come back to you with more on this issue. The issue of prayer needs a little bit more precision. Do you have any comment on this particular issue? Okay.
The second matter concerns the tributes. It has been proposed by Senator Black, Ontario. He was asking to reform the procedure for tributes because sometimes the tributes were longer than others. I see your hand raised, Senator Black. Do you want to explain it?
Senator Black: I was just wishing to explain that I asked our group, and this is one that came back. I did not propose it; I am just sharing it with the group. I wanted to be clear on that.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Let me tell you that when we look at the Rules of the Senate, this asks to reform rule 4-3. It says that we should reform it to be more in line with what the House of Commons does. But after verification, we have been informed that the House of Commons does not have a particular procedure.
This has been proposed. Do you have any comments on that? Okay.
The next item is senators’ statements. Senators’ Statements was also an issue that was raised by Senator Duncan. She may want to explain a little bit more.
[Translation]
This topic concerns the allocation of the senators’ statements at the Senate meetings. Currently, the allocation is based on the principle of proportionality. However, it seems that the demands are greater in larger groups than in smaller groups. We had to find a way to solve the problem. Right now, I think that this is being done in the clerk’s notes. Senator Duncan may want to elaborate on her suggestion to the committee.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Thank you, colleagues, for this discussion.
The issue is that we have more senators wanting to give statements than we have time slots in the larger group of which I am a part. While collegially we’re able to work it out, on occasion there are some senators who are not able to give statements and there are some we hear from more frequently than others. It’s how to allocate that precious air time. Is there some other methodology by which we could allocate it rather than the way that we’re doing it now?
I did successfully argue with leaders and at scrolls to increase from 15 minutes to 18 minutes. I’d like to suggest that that may be low-hanging fruit in terms of a rule change, to make that change in the Rules, and then how we allocate those 18 minutes.
Perhaps also in having a discussion about how to allocate it fairly amongst all senators, we could further define what is included in statements. Should we allow greater latitude, or should we be perhaps highlighting these are for individuals or some other criteria for the statements than we currently allow, or perhaps we should leave it as is?
My points are threefold: One, we can easily increase to the 18 minutes. We have done that in the past, and we could put that in the Rules. Two, how do we allocate those 18 minutes amongst, let’s hope one day, 105 senators? Perhaps there could be a better method of allocating than strictly by group and we consider an option for that. Three, perhaps bringing into modern language what should and should not be referenced in statements and what that time is allocated for. Those are the points that I would like Rules to discuss.
The Chair: Remember, we won’t enter into debate today on those issues, but we want to be clear in our minds what they are about. So thank you. That’s really clear, and that clarifies the question, for me especially.
Now we have a list of items relating to the changes we adopted while we are in hybrid. They concern the sitting of the Senate. They are the dinner break, the ordinary time of adjournment and the Wednesday and Friday sittings. Those issues were suggested, as you see on the list, by Senator Cordy for the dinner break and Senator Carignan for all the others. It is to redefine the “in default” things. For instance, for the dinner break, should we redefine it to have no dinner break, to have one hour, or to stay as it is — two hours by default — when we come back to in-person sittings?
It is the same thing with the ordinary time of adjournment. When we come back later in person, do we want midnight as the default or nine o’clock as default? For the Wednesday and Friday sittings, do we want them limited to government business? It is already so for the Friday sitting, but it’s not for the Wednesday sitting.
These are questions to be studied — if we want — or we may leave the leaders to talk about them.
Senator Batters: Regarding the one-hour break as it is currently under hybrid, or two hours as it previously was, I was talking to Senator Carignan about that. He indicated that he saw if there were a change made to the default two-hour amount, then he would see that as very much tied to the adjournment time because this would have a big impact on that. He also wondered, as you were saying in your opening comments, about replacing it with one hour, as we currently, generally, have. Again, that would have to be tied to the adjournment hour.
The Chair: Thank you for that precision.
The other subject comes from Senator Lankin and Senator Ringuette. Two senators are required to rise for a standing vote, while only one senator is needed to deny leave. When I looked at the Rules, I guess the reference here is — and I want to be sure I understand — that we need two senators to rise to have a standing vote. But when we resume in the Senate, we need leave to go back to the subject of why we had a vote. Is that the question? What is the issue? Do people want to have more than two senators to rise to have a standing vote? What is the proposed change here? We have Senator Lankin and Senator Ringuette, who proposed this suggestion.
Senator Lankin: Actually, I don’t believe I did. Senator Ringuette, I’m going to turn to you.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. Well, the question is as follows: We require in our rules, in our process, that in order to trigger a vote, two senators need to rise. That process was put in place when there were government and opposition sides. The scenario is now different. My question is, should that be different? Should we require more than two senators? That needs to be reviewed in the current context.
The other situation regards a committee chair seeking leave to put forth a motion — or whomever. Another senator is seeking leave to put forth a motion, et cetera. Is it normal, or should it be kept the same way, that a sole voice in the Senate says no and leave is denied? We need two senators to ask for a vote, but there’s only one voice in the wilderness, not even a senator standing, to say no, to deny leave. I think that is a question that we should be discussing and reviewing in the current context of the Senate.
The Chair: Now it is clear, well expressed, and we will make a correction. Your participation today on this list will be clear because the next version of this document will take into account your comments. Thank you.
Length of bells is the next item put forward. Senator Lankin, it was your proposal, with Senator Saint-Germain, to change the length of the bell. The rule, by default, is an hour. What is it, more or less, that you want on this issue?
Senator Lankin: I want to point out that my name appears a number of times. It’s actually Senator Saint-Germain, but I am speaking on her behalf, as Senator Black pointed out.
You’re correct. It’s simply a question about whether the default time should be shorter than that. The bells ring for an hour. One of the original reasons for length of bells in any legislature, Parliament or chamber is to give consideration to people who have been taken away on other business — in this case, Senate business — and to give an opportunity for them to get back into the chamber for a vote.
In the six years I’ve been here, I only recall one occasion when a large number of members of one caucus were at a very important event with part of their national caucus. That required an hour for people to get back. At other times, I would say it has been a dilatory use of the Rules. That’s my opinion. I know that opinion won’t be shared.
The question is, should it remain at an hour as default, or should it be shorter by default? The time can always be extended when there are those important occasions, like the one I referred to, when people require that much time to get back to the chamber to vote.
The Chair: That explained the context.
The next grouping is called Committees.
The first item is the name of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. It has been changed in step one, review for stylistic changes. That has already been done.
Review of committee mandates, step two, is already being discussed. It’s already in the pipeline.
The next item is the reorganization of the Selection Committee and re-evaluation of how to better allocate Senate committee space. This has been put forward by Senator Massicotte. He suggested we should think about another way to allocate committee seats, different than the way that we actually do it, and that led to all sorts of discussions in the Senate at the beginning of the session. I know there’s a lot of interest. Senator Massicotte said there is an approach that is a bit more independent, and it is done in other countries, England and Scotland, where they have systems similar to Canada. The idea is to have witnesses and study a different process for allocating seats by committee.
Senator Massicotte, do you want to add something? Are you’re okay with my description of the subject?
Senator Massicotte: I’m okay with what you said.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: I wanted a little bit more clarification on that. Maybe that was a discussion that happened at that previous in camera meeting where I was not in attendance, or maybe it happened in the Senate. I’m not sure, but I did not hear that discussion. I was wondering if Senator Massicotte wouldn’t mind explaining a little bit. Do you mean for committee members to select the committee members, or what was the meaning there? Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: Actually, to be very frank with you, when I read the narrative, I had no problems with it. I think it’s a good debate and discussion we should have, but it didn’t all come from me. I don’t know who it came from. I did suggest at one point we should look at how we name our committee chairs, for instance. If you look at the experience of Scotland or England, what they do is, in fact, for important committees, the committee chair is actually voted upon by — in our case — the whole Senate. It has been a very significant improvement to the prestige and credibility of the Senate. Therefore, it merits discussion here on whether we would benefit from the same, and that was really my specific point.
The same applies to next comment. You will see mandates. That wasn’t my suggestion. I presume that reflects the opinion of the subcommittee that was created, but it wasn’t necessarily mine relative to the mandates.
The Chair: I understand that the reorganization or the study on how we allocate members to committee is not only on the chair, but it also involves the challenge we had at the beginning of the Selection Committee and all the debate about portability and non-portability and if we had another way to allocate members than through groups. Is there another way? That’s a big theme. It involves witnesses and thoughtful debate. We need some meat to help us think about this process.
Senator Duncan: I also wanted to add that this is where the question that I raised earlier regarding the regional representation would fit in as well.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Duncan: Perhaps it should be flagged in that as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Yes, we should flag this theme of regional representation.
The next item concerns the modification to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and the Rules of the Senate. The third report of the CONF committee was adopted. In that third report, it was asked of the Rules Committee to consider and propose to the Senate amendments to the Rules regarding the composition of the committee, and the code will be amended once the Senate has adopted the Rules report on this matter. This comes from the leaders, I guess, or from the report adopted by CONF. It’s a question put to us because the report of the Ethics Committee was adopted by the Senate, and in this report, there is recommendation for us to change our rules to accommodate the nomination of the group.
Perhaps Adam would like to add some clarification to this item; if not, it’s okay.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, I will note that on this item, as the chair noted, there was a report from the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee for Senators. That report was adopted by the Senate, and this committee did hold a meeting, as I recall, last June with the then-chair and deputy chair of the committee outlining some of their thoughts. I know a number of senators had questions. Senators may wish to review the transcripts of that meeting, and that will provide some greater context and perhaps inform you of where we may wish to proceed with that.
Obviously, since the dissolution of Parliament, that report is no longer formally before us, but it certainly is within the context of the Rules and what we can look at. You may wish to start with conversations with the new chair, deputy chair and members of that committee just to validate their continuing concerns in that regard.
The Chair: Thank you. Good clarification.
Senator Lankin: I was going to ask if Adam would send us a copy of that transcript.
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
The other theme is the number of members on committees. As you know, we alluded to that recently today. It’s to reassess the number of senators per committee based on the normal workload for each senator. As you know, some committees, like CIBA and Rules, have 15 members. This is understandable. Some others have 12, like Finance, Legal and SOCI, and 12 is the norm. Some have nine, like the Selection Committee, OLLO, Human Rights and Defence. This will be taken care of when we talk about the revision of committees, the number of members per committee.
Methodology for the study of bills by committee. Here is Senator Lankin’s name also. It’s about a motion that I introduced in the Forty-second Parliament. The solution to the problem may be different, but at that time I proposed a motion to amend rule 12-23(1) to have, for the study of bills in committee, especially on non-government bills but all bills, a report more substantive than, when there was no amendment, saying that there was no amendment and so we propose the adoption of the bill, or to have a checklist on different items to see if some issues have been studied. For instance, is the bill constitutional? Does it respect the Charter? Have you heard some opposition? Where does it come from? If there were amendments that were defeated, what were they? You know, not a bureaucratic report, but the idea was to give a bit more substance to help senators make up their mind. A senator can always look at the committee, what was said and so forth at that time, but it would be appreciated if the report were a little bit more substantial without being bureaucratic.
Allowing committees to meet when the Senate is adjourned. Actually, we need the permission of the leaders and the facilitators to meet when we adjourn [Technical difficulties] Do we want to amend and be more allowable for this rule? For instance, if a committee has hours to meet on Monday, we need permission to sit after a break, even though it’s in a normal sitting slot. This is the rule.
Now, looking at procedure, election of Speaker pro tempore. It’s already done.
Establishment of a management committee. That was put forward. The names I have here are Senator Massicotte and Senator Lankin. The idea is to create a Senate management committee that would oversee decision-making in the process and order of discussion with senators from each group. Such a committee could make the Senate more relevant and effective for improving the process and the chamber.
In fact, the idea of a management committee came through when we had some bills that were a bit complex. We had the medical assistance in dying bill and the cannabis bill. We did manage the study of the bill in the Senate. The question is, should we do that for government business on a more regular basis? Some senates in the world do that. For instance, the French Senate has a management committee called the “Conférence des Présidents.” The leaders of each group meet once a month just to plan ahead on the legislation. Do we want that? We could have witnesses on that issue. It could be an interesting addition to our procedures.
Senator Batters: No one at this committee will probably be surprised to hear me say that that one may be interesting. It will definitely be controversial. I believe we already have a number of these procedures in the Senate with the daily scroll, discussions with the leaders and things like that. It’s not something I think should be set up as a general part of our process. In my view, it can take away from some of our democratic processes.
The Chair: So your group has no appetite for that, thank you. It’s okay. No comment.
Senator Batters: It was my point of view.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
A government time limit to respond to written questions has been raised by Senator Carignan. We have rules 4-9 and 4-10. There aren’t any limits on the time to have an answer to written questions. The oral questions sometimes don’t have any answers, and they can be answered by a written answer. People can ask with a written question and it will have a written answer, but there is not really any limit on the time allowed for the government to answer. Should we have a look at that?
Senator Ringuette: I believe we should have a serious look at that. If my memory is correct, in the House of Commons, there is a 30-sitting day limit for the government to provide answers to written questions or a detailed answer to an oral question. I think it should be a relatively easy rule to put forward.
The Chair: I see there is interest on that issue. Thank you.
Also on the list are propositions that relate to the same issue, which is how we can be more efficient in the Senate. How can we study non-government bills, especially, with more rapid timing?
The first one is with respect to reinstatement of bills. That’s a proposition to adopt a mechanism to reinstate non-government bills in the Senate more quickly when there is a prorogation or an election. This issue was put forward by Senator Dalphond through Senator Cordy. I don’t know if we want any comments on that.
The next one is related to the first. It is on Commons private member’s bills and establishing a schedule of chamber votes in the Senate to have the bills go through more fluidly.
[Translation]
The next topic is the establishment of votes by default on House of Commons private members’ bills with possible time extensions.
[English]
These issues have been documented in the past through motions put forth in the Senate. We could look at those motions if we want to increase our efficiency in the treatment of non‑government business.
A third one is non-government public bills, motions and committee reports, to establish a procedural path for voting on non-government Senate public bills, motions and committee reports, once the item has received a minimum of two hours of debate and been called on at least 15 sitting days. So it is related to improving our efficiency.
There is another one on the committee study of non-government bills, to establish a reasonable time limit of Senate committees for holding non-government bills without decision, so this relates to the timing of study in committee of non-government bills.
There is another one, which also relates to being faster and more efficient in our study of non-government business, and it’s to consider the adoption of a lottery in the Senate, as is done in the House of Commons. This was proposed by Senator Massicotte.
Senator Batters: For some of these, yes, in general. We would certainly have to have significant committee witnesses and things like that to make any of these kinds of changes. I’m generally not in favour of having these programming types of things. It’s not the job of the Senate to make these types of things speed through. Sometimes there is a good reason to have some considerable time taken on certain matters.
I also wanted to make a comment about the lottery system in the House of Commons. There is a comment here which states that the House of Commons has already implemented such a process to great satisfaction. That depends. When my husband was a member of Parliament, he was told, “You had better consider your private member’s bill wisely because you will only have one for the entire time you are a parliamentarian.” That is generally how it works in the House of Commons. We don’t have the same pressures in the Senate, so I personally wouldn’t see the need to have a lottery system. But it can be something that we look at and consider.
I’m generally not in favour of a programming-type system. If you look at the last several years and perhaps at the information that Shaila can get to us, it will show that over the years — I’ve been in the Senate for nine years — that we have passed a lot of bills and a lot of good bills. So we don’t necessarily have to do that, but it’s always good to re-evaluate your processes.
Senator Lankin: I’m just going to remind us that in this short time we’re not actually debating these things or putting forward pros and cons, but it is helpful to hear about it when there is something that someone is concerned about or doesn’t think they would support. Senator Batters, that was not at all to take away from what you said. I appreciate that.
Could we have some work done by the analysts to look at other jurisdictions and how this is handled? When I was a member of the provincial parliament in the Province of Ontario, every Thursday morning there were two hours dedicated to private members’ bills. There is a lottery. Everyone has their slot. They are able to change their slot with others. Maybe the problem in the House of Commons is the size, and that might have led to Senator Batters’ observation that you only get one in your career. I had two private member’s bills passed unanimously in the Province of Ontario during the time I was there, and there were opportunities to put more forward, but I only put forward two at that time. Anyways, if we could get that analysis, I think it would help us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you all very much for your participation in this committee this morning. I understand that the steering committee will meet as soon as possible, because we have a lot on our plate to plan. We will discuss the question of the committee mandates, as well as the question of the agenda for the coming weeks. We will pursue our discussion on the list at the next meeting.
Senator Duncan, do you have something to say?
Senator Duncan: I have a quick question. Will you also be discussing, in light of hybrid sitting perhaps coming to a conclusion, our meeting times? Will we be reverting to Tuesday?
The Chair: Yes, I asked our clerk, Adam Thompson, that question. He told me it would be difficult to change our time slot right now as long as we are using the hybrid format, because apparently we would have to switch with another committee that sits on Tuesday. When we come back to our regular mode of functioning, then we may be able to change. I think we will be able to change. For the moment, let’s say we cannot change anything for the weeks ahead.
Senator Duncan: Thank you.
Senator Lankin: I understand the constraints in terms of our hybrid sitting. There was, I think, a point to the conversation which wasn’t just about changing days. It was about if we were meeting on Mondays, could we accommodate another time? I know that Senator Busson indicated it would have to be early in the morning because she travels most of the rest of the day on Monday to get here. I note that Senator Greene and Senator Black have travel constraints that make this a difficult time for them to be here for the whole time. I have a problem that causes me to have to come in on Sundays, and we have other committees on Fridays. If we got the schedule of people’s normal flight times, normal travel restrictions, to see if an early morning or later-in-the-day meeting could be accommodated, I would appreciate that being looked into. Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin.
Senator Busson: I will be quick. Even an hour or two earlier, for instance, if we met at 10 instead of 11 or at 9 instead of 10, would be better. I would be prepared to get up. I can get there on Monday after that if that’s the case. That’s where I am on that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: I just briefly wanted to say that, hopefully, the real solution can be that we get back to our normal mode of proceeding soon. My understanding is that once we are back to normal, we will go back to our Tuesday at 9:30 in the morning time slot. That will makes things much better for everyone.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your participation this morning, and we will get to you as soon as possible. We are planning to have a meeting next week. Have a nice week of debate. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)