---

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 9, 2023

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:32 a.m. [ET] for the consideration of committee structures and mandates.

Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. My name is Denise Batters. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. Before continuing, I would invite colleagues to introduce themselves.

Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.

Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, senator from Ontario.

Senator Woo: Good morning. Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.

[Translation]

Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.

[English]

Senator Marwah: Good morning. Sabi Marwah from Ontario.

Senator Busson: My name is Bev Busson from British Columbia.

Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. Marty Deacon, Ontario.

Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.

The Deputy Chair: I’m normally a deputy chair for this committee, but today I’m acting as chair.

This morning we will be continuing our consideration of committee structures and mandates. In the first panel, we will be examining the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I’m pleased to welcome today with us in person the Honourable Senator Robert Black, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and joining us online by video conference, the Honourable Diane Griffin, former senator and former chair of the committee.

We are going to start with Senator Black, and I would invite each of you to make opening remarks of no more than five minutes, please, so we have time for questions. After Senator Black has concluded his opening remarks, he will be followed by former Senator Griffin, after which we’ll have questions from our senators here at the committee today.

Senator Black, please proceed.

Hon. Robert Black: Thank you, chair, and honourable senators.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss my experiences as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, or AGFO. Since our honourable colleague Diane Griffin’s departure through retirement, I’ve been honoured to take her chair.

It has been my great privilege to serve in this capacity since December 9, 2021. I have enjoyed the opportunity, and I’m happy to share my thoughts on what is necessary for the continued success of this committee. Much, if not all of it, you will have heard already from previous witnesses.

Colleagues, my first concern is the current committee time slot system for Senate committees. In the other place, I understand they rotate committee meeting time slots on a more frequent time frame; whereas, the Senate does not, which often results in us at AGFO losing our sitting ability when the Senate sits into the evening. I expect this will be more evident in the weeks to come as we near the end of this session and the end of every session.

The AGFO committee cannot fulfill its potential only operating with 50% of the committee time when we get busy in the chamber, so I have two recommendations to share with you. Either we need to change the rules to allow committees to sit while the chamber is sitting, or we need to create a rotation for committees so that in the longer run, we can fulfill our duties to produce reports and hold hearings in a timely and accommodating fashion.

With this issue of committee time slots, I’m also concerned about the image it casts when we have to cancel meetings. We’re often unable to cancel committee meetings until we receive scroll updates or updates to the updates, which are often later in the day of our committee hearings. Therefore, a lot of work is lost on short notice to cancel. It is unfair that we have to cancel on witnesses. I’m sure there have been times when the Senate has paid to fly witnesses in to testify, and these meetings are cancelled. Certainly, it’s a bad reflection on the Senate when we’re cancelling on Canadians who have travelled and are mentally and physically prepared to provide testimony on our behalf.

Another concern I have is the seemingly increasing limitations on travel. While I’m aware that we need to be diligent of our use of public funds, I believe we must simultaneously be cognizant that the Senate serves all of Canada. While it’s based in Ottawa, it’s important that we, as senators, are seen throughout the nation to support our various regions and the diverse cultures and communities that we have across this vast country.

I’ve heard from other senators that travelling has allowed them to engage with rural, Indigenous and marginalized groups that otherwise wouldn’t have had the opportunity to provide testimony to the committee. Along with this, I’m concerned that, at times, we’ve been limited in the number of senators travelling when, in some cases, all members of committee express interest in participating in fact-finding missions. I’d also like to address my appreciation of spot studies, which are short, intermediate and focus on problems that require direct and immediate attention from elected officials, which then elevates these issues to the national level. I think these are extremely productive and resourceful for the sectors, industries, organizations and communities they affect, as well as government.

Finally, senators, I’d like to address the lack of consensus building in committees. At AGFO, we work towards majority agreements; whereas, I am aware that other committees often vote on unanimity, which is limiting to the productivity of committees and gives far too much power to the minority. In the Senate, we proceed with majority votes, and I believe this should be extended and considered at all the committees we serve as well.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today, and I will look forward to questions when the time comes.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Black.

We will hear from our former colleague, former senator Diane Griffin. Very nice to see you again. Please proceed.

Hon. Diane F. Griffin, former Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: Thank you, chair and senators for the opportunity to make a presentation as a part of this panel.

While I will focus on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I will stray a little bit further, as I was part of a working group that looked at the Senate’s committee structure and mandates about two years ago. Senator Cordy and Senator Busson were both on this working group, and it was great working with them.

I served on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee for more than four years, and quite a lot of that time was as chair. As previously noted, the Agriculture Committee does not deal with a lot of legislation. There were only two government bills and seven other bills in the last 10 years. However, the committee’s work is really important in dealing with special studies related to two of Canada’s major industries: agriculture and forestry.

The Senate is generally well known for its studies, and they’ve been comprehensive over the years for this committee, as for others, of course.

The Agriculture Committee is scheduled to meet twice of week, one of which is at the worst possible time on Tuesday evening. As already noted by my former colleague, there were many meetings that had to be cancelled or shortened because the Senate was sitting, and this was frustrating for witnesses who had arrived as scheduled to give testimony before the committee. It was also frustrating for the senators who served on the Agriculture Committee.

I have noted in the past — and I continue to note — that the natural resources-related committees all have this undesirable scheduled time for their meetings. In addition to AGFO, the Fisheries and Oceans Committee and the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee are all in this unfortunate timing situation. It often brings about the de facto situation of having only one meeting in a week rather than two.

Is the mandate of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee too broad or too narrow? I believe it could be broadened to include natural resources. This would clearly take the mandate beyond the inferred narrow scope of “forestry” and into a broader one, including conservation, parks and wildlife. I suggest the name of “Agriculture and Natural Resources.” I should note here that since forestry is primarily a provincial responsibility, AGFO has spent relatively little time dealing with this part of its mandate. Also, fisheries were once part of the mandate of AGFO, but was hived off to become its own committee. This predated my time in the Senate. While I really don’t know why this happened, perhaps it is time to reconsider this.

I referred earlier to the working group that looked at committees. This had representation across the various Senate groups. We noted that the terms of reference for committees were uneven, with some having highly detailed statements, while others were very general. As well, some were rather out of date. For instance, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications had “telegraph” in its purview. To put this into perspective, the last time I received a telegram was at my wedding, almost 53 years ago. I congratulate the Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament Committee and the Senate itself for instituting some of the proposed changes quickly, such as changing the name of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee to the Indigenous Peoples Committee.

I was pleased to read the minutes of the Rules Committee of February 28, 2022, which recommended simplified versions of the various committee mandates. Great work, folks. Now, what you’ll notice if you check with the Senate website is that it’s not up to date with noting what the new mandate wording is. It still has the old wording. That’s something that I think could be fixed fairly quickly.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today by Zoom from Tucson, Arizona. Thanks, folks.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We really appreciate you taking the time to be here with us today. We’re going to have time for questions now, so please try to keep your questions and the answers that you receive as succinct as possible. I’ll try to keep it to about five minutes each so we will have time for everyone.

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Black, you talked about restrictions on travel. I tend to agree. In our recent study on Islamophobia, we learned more on our travels than we did when we heard from witnesses whether on Zoom or whether they were sitting at the table.

I know you travelled recently because I heard comments about how invaluable that trip was. I think you were looking at soil. How do we convince the powers that be? For those of us who have been on these things, it’s not a junket. Maybe more senators should travel just to see the work that does get done. How do we convince them that travel is an important part of committee work?

Senator Black: Thank you for the question. I think we need to keep sharing the valuable information that we’ve learned on these trips.

I acknowledge that we need to consider the public purse. There’s no question about that. However, at the end of the day, how does one, chair or otherwise, decide who travels and who doesn’t, if there’s an interest by all? I think it works out. I’ve had a few opportunities to travel through committees. At the end of the day, people don’t travel because of other commitments. So I think it will shake itself out and not everyone will travel. As a chair, however, I would not like to have to determine who can travel and who cannot, especially if everyone has committed to the meetings that we’ve held and has shown their interest in the committee meetings.

Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for that. We’re all senators. We’re all equal and we should have equal opportunities.

You discussed the meeting times. Do you think it might be better to have committees meet once a week for three hours? I’ve also asked this question of other chairs.

Senator Black: I don’t; that’s my two cents. I like the two‑hour times two time slots. I think there’s a best-before time. After two hours, I think we get tired and “informationed” out. Even if we change witnesses through different panels, I think that’s a long time. I would not be in favour of that.

Senator Ataullahjan: On some committees, we don’t have the choice. We sit for four hours — and, believe me, it’s difficult, especially now, since we’re not allowed to have a meal or anything. Last week, Human Rights had an in camera meeting, and we were there from four o’clock to 8:40. It can be difficult. Some of us are older — I speak for myself here — and we do need some nourishment.

Senator Black: We’re all older. We’ve heard at committee that the work that committees do is very important. If we acknowledge that, agree with it and believe it, then we need to make every effort to make sure committees have the opportunity to do the good work that they’ve done.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Ringuette: First, you said that committees should rotate in order for AGFO not to be penalized on Tuesday evening. In regards to that, would it be a better fit if the rules were to provide an automatic exemption if the Senate sits after 6 p.m.?

Senator Black: Absolutely.

Senator Ringuette: Second, right now you have two slots of two hours. Would it be more efficient for your committee to have one slot of three hours?

Senator Black: I believe that was essentially Senator Ataullahjan’s question. I don’t agree with that.

Senator Ringuette: Could you tell us why?

Senator Black: I think three hours is a long time for committee members to prep for and be at their best investigative nature. My colleagues on the Agriculture Committee are very passionate about the work that we’re doing. I’m delighted at how well they prepare. If we had to think about three panels over three hours, that’s too long. I think all committees should meet for two hours. It’s unfortunate that some committees even meet up to four hours.

The Deputy Chair: Senator Ringuette, Senator Griffin wanted to weigh in on that. Would that be okay?

Senator Ringuette: Yes.

Ms. Griffin: Thank you, chair. Not only is it unfair to the senators who are trying their best to do the very best job that they can do, but it’s also unfair to the panellists, especially the ones that appear later. If you have three panels, the third set of panellists will not get the kind of attention and the deep thought from the committee that they would like to have. It’s unfair to them as well as the senators to go for a longer period instead of a more succinct period of time. Thank you.

Senator Ringuette: You talked about majority votes. Consensus is not unanimity. All the applicable Rules of the Senate are also applicable to the committee. So you have the opportunity to move forward without consensus and have votes.

I’m trying to dig a little further into this from you.

Senator Black: I am well aware that some committees will not move forward on specific pieces of reports or parts of bills that they’re looking at unless there’s full agreement, and it concerns me that a small minority can stop or slow down the process. I certainly understand this has happened at a number of committees.

Senator Ringuette: Thank you.

The Deputy Chair: Before we go on, I wanted to ask Senator Black a question. Over the last number of years, some senators have occasionally contended that the Agriculture and Forestry Committee should merge with another committee. We’ve now heard former Senator Griffin’s suggestion about perhaps having the portion that is natural resources come over to this committee. I would like you to tell us why you think that idea should or should not be pursued.

Senator Black: Thank you, chair, for that question.

I first heard about Senator Griffin’s suggestion when she shared her notes with me earlier. I don’t have a problem with broadening forestry to natural resources. I think we have to be careful with the committees that we might merge. As we well know with former Senator Griffin and then during my time as chair, we haven’t done a lot on forestry. If we add that, it may water down the amount of study that can be done on a variety of topics.

As you well know, agriculture is where I play in the Senate Chamber, and I think agriculture is a tremendously important sector that hasn’t been given its fair share. So I’m not averse to merging, but I think we have to be careful how we merge and whom we might merge with.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Yes, of course, being from Saskatchewan and having my family background with agriculture, I absolutely understand and agree that agriculture always needs to have attention. It’s such an important industry in Canada — and in the world — and we need to make sure about that. Senator Griffin’s suggestion was more that that portion of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources would come over. So it’s not necessarily a full merger. However, there have been those who have proposed a full merger of certain committees.

Thank you. Pardon me for taking the place, but now we’ll hear from Senator Cordy.

Senator Cordy: You’re allowed to ask questions too. We won’t revolt.

Thank you very much to both of you. It has been really interesting and also interesting to look at the mandates from all the committees from the chairs and former chairs of committees that have appeared before us.

Along the same lines, the House of Commons re-evaluates its committee structure after every election. Now we don’t run on an election cycle in the Senate, but we have heard from some chairs that perhaps we should look at the mandates every five years. For example, should it be natural resources? Should it be agriculture and natural resources? Should it be a combining of certain committees? Should Transport and Communications — the telegraph is actually in their mandate — perhaps be separate committees? I don’t know.

We’ve added a number of committees since I’ve been in the Senate, and there are only so many time slots. Nobody wants to sit on Mondays. If you commit to a Monday meeting, and you can’t go, it’s very difficult to get somebody to replace you on a Monday. That’s the reality of it. Should we be looking at evaluations every five years to see if there are some committees that are overworked and some committees that maybe should take on more responsibilities? Should we be looking at things that have become outdated, like the telegraph? Should we be doing constant evaluations with an end goal of five years for changing — or maybe not changing, but at least evaluating committees?

Senator Black: I personally think — and I’ll welcome former Senator Griffin’s comments as well — that looking at things every five years makes absolute sense. We’re looking at it today in your committee, and when was the last time, really, that this type of evaluation was done? I think every five years, if it was calendarized, would absolutely make sense.

The Deputy Chair: Senator Griffin, would you like to weigh in on that?

Ms. Griffin: I agree 100%.

Senator Cordy: I also agree with your comments about limitations on travel. I remember studying mental health and mental illness and seeing people where they lived in communities — people who would never have travelled to Ottawa but appeared before us. With Human Rights, we went to prisons and walked through them. I have to tell you that walking through a prison door and having it shut behind you gives you a whole new perspective on what it’s like.

Meeting fishers in their communities and understanding what it’s like to be fishing on the North Atlantic — you can hear people talking around a table, but it’s important to actually be there. So I totally agree with that. I also find it very frustrating when they’ll say to a committee that they can travel, but only 8 of the 12 can travel. That may happen in reality, but to tell a committee that’s the case is not fair to people who have been sitting around studying a topic for ages and ages.

Senator Griffin, you spoke earlier about the working group. You and I, along with Senators Busson and former Senator Forest-Niesing, did a working group on looking at committees and brought forward a report. Senators Greene and Massicotte have done studies on this for I don’t know how many years. We tweak things, but we never really make changes. Is there a way we can change that? We’re doing a study here in our committee. Is it just going to be that we talk a lot and get good recommendations but it never goes anywhere? How can we make the changes happen, other than by tweaking so that instead of APPA we have the Indigenous Peoples Committee? We’ve made a few tweaks but no major changes.

Senator Griffin: You’ve made a very good point. The low‑hanging fruit was harvested. So now the tough job is to look at the big picture. You can’t continue to create committees — as has already been noted — without having to lose or consolidate some committees. There’s only so much time available, as has already been noted.

If somebody is on a committee that they love or chair — or whatever — they’re going to feel their ox is being gored if their committee is disbanded. Rather than disbanding committees, I think a lot of consolidation can occur. Some committees have just been overworked — SOCI being one. Social affairs is big in its own right, and then science and technology is another part of its mandate. In this modern age, wow, that’s a huge committee.

At the end of the day, somebody has got to bite the bullet. I would suggest the Rules Committee is a great place to start on this.

I’m glad you’re on the committee, by the way.

Senator Black: I don’t have anything to add except that I think this is the right committee. I hope we can make things happen. I sit on the committee, and I hope we can make things happen.

Senator M. Deacon: I have a short question, but I do want to build on my colleague Senator Cordy. Thank you both for being here today. It’s nice to see you, Senator Black, and it’s really nice to see former Senator Griffin here virtually. It’s wonderful.

I think “frustrated” is too strong a word. Coming into the Senate, I spent a lot of time in the first few months with Senators Greene and Massicotte through that modernization process. I think in this room, there are probably five or six things that are filtering as commonalities that we look at, whether it’s equity — we do talk about committees being equal, but they really aren’t. We have different lives in different committees with different workloads with different challenges and different dynamics.

That is really my similar question that I keep wondering about. What is going to get us over the hump so we can make some changes — even if it’s only three significant changes — that help us be more efficient? Because something has to give. We have a finite number of days. We have committees, and we want to have larger committees and a number of committees, and we also need to consolidate. Therefore, I’m constantly asking that question.

I’m not looking for another answer on your question, but I want to stress how important it is and that we are the group that needs to look at this. We are the group that needs to make the changes that we’re hearing about day after day. Even if we can’t do all of them, we need to come out with something soon so that we do see some improvements or some review of those improvements.

That aside — because that wasn’t a question; that was a comment — you talked, Senator Black, early in your statement, about “spot on” or “on the spot.” You had a term for it.

Senator Black: Spot studies.

Senator M. Deacon: Spot studies. I think we can all describe something similar in our committees, but I want to know, in your spot studies, what drives that which gets to the table on these short-term spot studies? Is there a process in your committee? Does it just come to you as an important one-off? What does that look like in your committee world?

Senator Black: Thank you for that question, Senator Deacon.

Issues will come through the steering committee. The steering committee will consider and essentially say, “This would make a good short or spot study.”

Let’s look at the floods in B.C. as a short, intermediate study that we undertook last year over a few short months. As a result of that study and the introduction of the soil health study, over 47,700 visitors navigated to our committee’s website over the previous year. That’s a 114% increase over the previous year. It was because of the undertaking and release of that spot study. It had three recommendations, which we hope the governments at all levels will undertake. It’s something that’s happening in the moment.

As I say, the process would be that it comes to steering and then gets taken to committee for consideration. We have the luxury of having some time; other Senate committees don’t have that same luxury, but I think it’s important to do that.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. There are different thoughts on the size of committees. We have heard numbers of 12 and maybe higher; we’ve heard 8 or 9. Have you been thinking about what makes an efficient committee?

Senator Black: I would personally think 9 to 12. I see the reasoning but given our smaller numbers, certainly nine would be better. If we don’t think we’re going to fill the remaining 13 in short order, then we need to have the resources, the senators, to fill all the committees.

Senator M. Deacon: The final piece is trying to compare these across different committees. We do work in committees. Then we hear the big, “So what?” We’ve done studies, and they’re really important and near and dear to us. Could we be doing better on the work of committees so that Canadians can see its worth? You talked about some data that you have gathered. Can they see that it actually has an impact and has an action in a more purposeful way than we are showing them now?

Senator Black: I think our committees — especially in the studies that are undertaken across the committee board — are good things. If you look at the reports that have been done over the last number of years, even in the five years I’ve been here, those committee reports are held up as being good stuff. That’s where our best work is done, in committee. We do good work in the Senate Chamber, but I personally think our best work is done at committee.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: My question will be broad. Thank you, Senator Black and Honourable Diane F. Griffin, for being with us today. My question is for both of you.

When doing our committee reports, we have a recurring challenge in terms of the concordance between the English and French versions. When we study them, there are two piles of documents with many pages, and it is difficult for us to follow.

So, I have thought of a proposal, and I would like your opinion on this. Would it help, in light of the questions I asked certain analysts, if committee reports were presented with the English and French side by side? If we were following the English version, this would make it so we would not need to go to another page, so we would be able to follow in both languages. When we consulted other analysts from other committees, they told us that this would improve their work, as well.

As committee chairs who have to consult these documents, what do you think?

[English]

Ms. Griffin: I think it’s a great idea. Thank you.

Senator Black: I concur. I think that’s a great idea. Once we get into the format and the process, I think it’s great. That’s my comment.

The Deputy Chair: Senator Black, you were suggesting perhaps a change of the rules so that Senate committees could sit while the Senate is sitting. I would see a drawback of that. Being a member of a smaller group, you can only be in so many places at once. Some of us are on three committees right now while also trying to handle chamber responsibilities and be part of that work. We’ve just had some very important debates, including on Bill C-11. I would not have wanted to be out of the chamber to deal with committee responsibilities at the same time as we were debating that bill, because it was such a matter of national importance.

What do you have to say about that? Unlike the House of Commons, where the House does sit while committees are sitting, the Senate does not, generally. That’s a particular feature, and I think it has made our committees stronger because we have that as a general rule. What do you have to say about the chamber responsibilities?

Senator Black: I, too, come from a smaller group, so I feel what you’re saying, but it’s important that we think about the witnesses with whom we have connected and invited, saying, “We’ll hear from you Tuesday night.” Sometimes those are cancelled on a Tuesday at six o’clock. That does not look good for the Senate.

As a senator, I can be where I want to be. If I want to be in the chamber for the kind of discussion and debate that took place in the previous few weeks, that would be up to me. As chair, I would then seek to have someone else chair that meeting because I couldn’t be there.

I still contend that committees, especially on Tuesdays, should be able to sit while the Senate is sitting, and we can agree to disagree.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Senator Woo: It’s nice to see former Senator Griffin. Thank you, Senator Black, for appearing on our committee. You will remember, of course, in one of the earlier hearings, there was a reference to another committee doing a study on carbon emissions in the agricultural sector as part of a broader study. There was some discussion about overlap and contradicting messages and so. They reached a somewhat different conclusion from what your committee has reached.

Maybe you can comment on the general problem of coordination and overlap. However, my more specific question is — and this is not just directed at the Agriculture Committee — how do we make sure that committees don’t become lobby groups for the sectoral interests that they are studying?

Agriculture is hugely important for the country, but it’s one sector among many. The agricultural industry, writ large, is not just about producers; it’s also about consumers, of course. Sometimes their interests are at odds — you know that very well — particularly when it comes to trade policy. I’m referring, of course, to the famous supply management.

How do we make sure that our committees — Agriculture, Banking, Transport, Fisheries — because of the make-up of those committees, don’t end up perpetuating interests in those narrow sectors, which are good for the sectors but maybe not so good for the country as a whole?

Senator Black: Thank you for the question, Senator Woo. I think we need to rely on our colleague senators at steering and around the committee table to acknowledge that up front, and make sure we hear from a broad range of witnesses. Again, I can only speak for AGFO, but I’ll share with you that our committee gets ideas from all the senators and, I’m delighted to say, from a variety of perspectives. In AGFO specifically, I don’t think we’re hearing just from one side. That’s in my five years as a committee member, but I think that speaks to the strength of the steering committee and where they come from, both from groups and their backgrounds/skill sets.

Up front, I made it very clear when we started the soil study, that we wanted to hear from all sides of the issue, and so we are hearing from those that are proponents of carbon markets and those who are perhaps on an environmental bent. We need to hear all sides, and if the chair, deputy chair and the steering committee can’t do that, I would hope that our committee members will steer us correctly. That’s about all I can say.

With respect to overlap, in a previous committee meeting here we heard potentially the need for committee chairs to share what is happening outside at another meeting — and no one wants another meeting — but to me that made a lot of sense. It might be once a month, once a session, I’m not sure what, but I think that makes a lot of sense, and that would allow me to learn what is happening in other committees that might be close to where AGFO is coming from.

Senator Woo: I think the issue is self-selection. We all tend to go to places that we are naturally inclined to and perhaps prejudice in favour of, and that tendency expresses itself in this place as well.

Ms. Griffin: Thank you, Senator Woo. That’s a great comment and question. I would note that for Agriculture, we don’t have farmers in the Senate unfortunately, and that’s always something I said we’re lacking. It’s hard to represent every interest in the country, so we have tended to get people on that particular committee who come from other backgrounds, of course, which has actually enriched the committee greatly. For instance, you served on the committee at one point and were an excellent member on that committee.

Your point about self-selection is an excellent one. We all have our preferences, but we really should take one for the team in terms of looking out for the country and make sure that we have a variety of interests on committees. As long as we’re doing self-selection — which is basically what we have been doing in recent years, I should say — that’s a tough one to deal with. Do you push people into serving on a committee? They used to.

Can I go back to another point —

The Deputy Chair: Sorry, we need to keep going if that’s okay. Maybe you can work it into another answer, if you wouldn’t mind, Senator Griffin. I want to make sure to give everyone the necessary points here. Of course, farmers feed the world and we are all consumers. Every Canadian is a consumer.

Senator MacDonald: Senator Black, it is good to have you here.

I see Senator Manning is walking in; he may be interested in this question. We’re talking about combining committees, and you were open to the idea of perhaps combining natural resources with agriculture. I’m one of those people who think there are too many committees that there should be more of an effort combining the right committees. If we were going to combine two committees, I always thought that Agriculture and Fisheries would be natural to combine. I’m curious what your reflection is on that. What do you think of that?

Senator Black: From my perspective, I wouldn’t have an issue with that. The work and studies that they do is significant, and if we’re limited to two hours a week, it will be tough. If we know we’ve got four hours, then you might have two studies going, one in Fisheries and one in Agriculture potentially. I would certainly not think that’s a bad idea.

Senator MacDonald: When I look at the government bills over a 10-year period, there were five government bills studied in a 10-year period in those two committees combined. I think there are some numbers there and that’s food for thought for all of us when it comes to any potential restructuring of the committees. I think we should be open to the idea of restructuring our committees.

Senator Black: As the committee chair, I certainly would be open to that.

Senator Busson: I want to give a special shout out to Senator Griffin for being here at such an early time in your part of the world. It’s great to see you, and also to Senator Black.

One of the things about being later in the committee questioning is that a lot of things I wanted to ask have already been asked. Senator Woo touched on the issue I’ll raise right now. Self-selection onto committees is arguably an interesting way of doing it.

I’m wondering if either of you would like to comment on the attention paid to making sure that committees have both regional representation, representation of minority groups and Indigenous representation throughout the committee. How much priority do you think Selection should take in making sure that is the case?

Senator Black: I can start, thank you very much. I think it’s very important. Over the course of my time on the Agriculture Committee, we have ebbed and flowed with respect to regional representation and diversity.

It’s important. If your self-selecting and if AGFO had nobody from British Columbia — we do have Senator Jaffer on our committee who, I might add, is a farmer, so we do have a poultry farmer in the Senate. At the outset, as a chair or a steering committee, if we see the need to prod, ask, request that maybe we can get some further representation, I think that’s doable, important and we should consider that.

Senator Busson: Can I beg your opinion, Senator Griffin?

Ms. Griffin: I’d like to go back to the point I made earlier, which is that there are very few farmers in the Senate. We all like to eat. We’re all involved in this in one way, shape or form. But at one point on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee the person who lived furthest west was from Fergus, Ontario. The Fisheries Committee is definitely dominated by people from the Atlantic Canadian provinces, but perhaps one or two from the West Coast, but this is not good.

Senator Busson: Thank you. Seeing as I have your undivided attention, Senator Griffin, I wanted to ask you particularly — because I know you worked hard on the working group that myself, Senator Cordy and you worked on through, beyond partisan opinions, et cetera — if you had a choice to put number one on the priority list of things that this committee should change, what would it be?

Ms. Griffin: I would suggest that the number one is to not just tinker with the small, low-hanging fruit, which has already been harvested; it’s easy to do that. I suggest that some hard opinions have to be made about what really are the priorities in today’s world and where the Senate can best make value added. Then I think it will become very obvious, but it will get muddied with personalities and you have to be tough enough to say, no, we’re doing the right thing, we’re here for all Canadians, we’re here to represent minorities and whatnot, but we’re here for all Canadians and we’re going to do the best job possible with the resources that we have. That’s going to require some tough decisions and perhaps some bruised egos.

Senator Busson: Thank you very much.

Ms. Griffin: So be it.

Senator Marwah: Thank you, colleagues, and good seeing you again, Senator Griffin.

I’m hearing comments from many of the other chairs we have had appear as witnesses that we have an issue that we believe there are too many committees. On top of that, there is the pressure that we’re not allowed to sit committees when the Senate is sitting. Then we have limited time slots during the times that the Senate is not sitting, and then we have translation pressures. We have all of those and are trying to solve for all four.

In order of priority, which one do you think we should address first? Should we address the issue that committees should be allowed to sit when the Senate is sitting? Should we extend the days where committees are allowed to sit, being Mondays or Fridays? Or do we reduce the number of committees? Which ones would you address, in order of priority?

Senator Black: Yes, really.

Ms. Griffin: I could go first.

Senator Marwah: Senator Manning is coming to you next.

Senator Black: Senator Griffin has her hand up. Let her go first.

Ms. Griffin: First of all, I would very quickly harvest a piece of low-hanging fruit here in terms of time, and that is whenever that two-hour supper break occurs, allow committees to sit. That’s another time they are not allowed to sit, when they are spinning their wheels and waiting. That is a piece of low-hanging fruit that could be made available.

My priority would be to do some consolidation and be very judicious in how it’s done. I love the idea of a five-year review because in today’s modern world things are changing quickly, especially in science and technology. So let’s look at where the priorities are and where the Senate can best add value, and it can do that by evaluating what committees it has and what it should have.

Senator Black: Thank you for your question, Senator Marwah. I too would suggest judiciously reducing the committees, looking at their mandates and bringing them together where possible. Going forward, we may be tasked with dealing with special committees, like we have had a few of in the previous number of years, that will come up because of issues of the day. The Senate may wish to do a special study on COVID-19 or studies on issues that have come to the forefront. So if we can reduce the number of committees to some extent, it will allow us to take on those special issues that maybe we can’t right now.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Senator Ringuette: When we were talking about integration or commonality in regards to environment and agriculture, or environment and fisheries, sometimes you might even have a constitutional issue that ties them.

I’m throwing this at you to get your feedback. What if every two weeks, instead of having a Question Period, the chair of every committee would report on what their committee is looking for in the next two weeks? So every senator would be informed of what is going on in different committees.

Senator Black: I think that’s an idea that we could look at. My concern would be that there are 18 committees.

Senator Ringuette: Let’s say that we have 14.

Senator Black: If there were 14 committees in an hour or 30 minutes, how much time do I have to actually tell you what our committee is involved in? If it’s fair and equitable, I guess I should have the opportunity to say, “Nothing new, thanks,” and make it short and sweet. Anything that we can do to inform our colleagues more in other ways is a great idea, because you don’t know what’s happening in AGFO unless you come or you talk to one of us.

Ms. Griffin: It’s an interesting concept. It’s not something I had ever pondered or thought of, but I don’t see why it should not be considered. That’s up to your committee. If you wanted to bring that forward, I’m sure there are a lot of committee chairs who would be happy. Thank you.

Senator Black: I will just add that this has actually come up in our Canadian Senators Group. Folks around our table want to know more about what’s happening in committees, so we will be implementing that in our group specifically.

The Deputy Chair: I would point out that it wouldn’t necessarily have to take the place of a Question Period. Question Period is only 30 minutes each day that the Senate sits. I personally think it’s a valuable opportunity to be able to hold the government to account by all senators in the chamber, and so that could be something that would take place at a time other than that. We will consider it.

Thank you very much to both Senator Black and former Senator Griffin for joining us today.

For our second panel, we will be examining the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I’m pleased to welcome here today the Honourable Senator Fabian Manning, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; and a normal member of our committee, the Honourable Senator Bev Busson, Deputy Chair of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee.

Senator Manning, I invite you to make your opening remarks of no more than five minutes, please, followed by Senator Busson. After that, we will have senators’ questions for you.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Thank you, Madam Chair and senators, for giving Senator Busson and I the opportunity to come before you this morning to discuss the ongoing and important work of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which I have had the privilege to chair since June 2, 2011. It will be 12 years next month.

Our mandate is to examine legislation on all matters related to fisheries and oceans including, but not limited to, the management of oceans, aquatic resources and fisheries, aquatic life and ecosystems, the fishing industry, the Canadian Coast Guard and the safety of waterways, as well as the federal government’s framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans.

Let me be very clear from the beginning. We have an excellent, like-minded group of senators on our committee who get along extremely well and are dedicated to addressing the issues and concerns of what we believe is a vital, important industry in this country.

Our committee consists of 10 members at the present time, five men and five women, of which two members are of a visible racial minority and one Indigenous member, a well-rounded membership. We have had 30 meetings since our last session with 85 witnesses appearing before us.

I’m not going to belabour the point here. I would rather get into questions and concerns that the committee may have. With that, I’m going to pass it over to Senator Busson to make a few opening remarks so we can get to your questions.

Hon. Bev Busson: Thank you, Madam Chair, for offering me the opportunity to add to the discussions surrounding the mandates of standing Senate committees.

I have been a member of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee since soon after I joined the Senate in 2018 and have been deputy chair for the last two years, plus.

As Senator Manning has described, we agree that our mandate is sufficiently broad to address the range of issues confronting Canada in this regard. I believe our ability to use our mandate to accomplish the studies on issues that we are faced with is within the mandate and is not restricted.

We have recently completed a number of studies in the Senate, one on marine search and rescue, another one on Peace on the Water, which we are presently waiting and dealing with the response from both stakeholders: Indigenous people, who have a reasonably positive response, and the government, not so much.

Tonight, we are working on a prestudy on part 4, division 21 of Bill C-47, which is commonly known as the budget.

I personally believe that 10 people on our committee is an optimal number, and it certainly works for us. It is, as Senator Manning said, representative of both regional and minority persons. It seems to work incredibly well, especially, I believe, with “Mr. Fisheries and Oceans” at the helm.

I also strongly believe that Senate committees should be encouraged wherever possible, especially on the national stage, to travel outside of Ottawa in order to be both accessible and more relevant to those who want to have a voice, and who feel Parliament has become perhaps an elite forum for those who have and understand digital access, but not for others.

The ability of members to participate by teleconference is also something that I think we should discuss. I also believe that travel not only allows witnesses to be accessible to the Senate, but for senators to find themselves and become more familiar with parts of the country where they have never been before.

I’m sure that all of you have had to describe to individuals where you live — especially those from outside of the centres where you live — what makes that part of the world go around. I believe travel is an important facet for a number of issues.

We’re subject to the issue of Tuesday evening meetings as well. I believe either solution, whether it is being allowed to meet when the Senate is sitting, or in other focuses if that isn’t acceptable, to be able to have a three-hour meeting on another date.

As Senator Manning suggested, I believe that questions are incredibly important. I will leave it at that. Thank you.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate both of you being here.

Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, senators, for your presentations this morning.

Senator Manning, we talk about travel. I know we finished the recent study of the seal population. Tell me your reaction when you are denied travel. I always feel when I go into a room that’s full of people who have heard that the senators are going to be there, it’s always a great learning experience. Share the importance — most of us have heard it — of travel.

I also want to commend you. I know it’s frustrating. We have had many Tuesday evenings cancelled. I know it’s frustrating for you, for the committee and for the witnesses. In your opinion, what is a good way around that?

Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan. I’m going to go to your last question first, then I’ll go back to the others.

Tuesday evening, as everybody understands, is certainly a complicated issue when we are sitting. We have had to cancel many meetings.

Even when trying to organize meetings, we try to have government officials on Tuesday evenings, or members of different departments, because it’s easier to cancel those than to cancel witnesses who have either travelled to Ottawa or are lined up to go online with us. That’s always a balancing act for the clerk and the analysts to work on.

My solution to that, number one, is that we look at possible ways. Every committee cannot sit while the Senate is sitting. All committees can’t sit. There may be some way of balancing that out for a period of time that some Senate committees would sit at times, sit for a longer period of time. Instead of a two-hour meeting, maybe a three-hour meeting. That would be the decision of the committee in regards to the witnesses when we do have the opportunity to sit.

I don’t rule out Mondays and Fridays. I travel to Newfoundland every weekend pretty well. If there is an important topic that needs to be discussed that’s relevant, that needs answers, that needs recommendations to the government, what would be wrong with extending the sittings to a Monday evening or a Friday morning, whatever the case may be?

We all have the privilege of sitting in the Senate. Everybody looks at Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I’m just as quick at getting out of here Thursday evening as most others are. There may be times when we should take a second look at that and have a meeting on a Thursday evening and fly out of here on a Friday morning. There are different ways of looking at that in my view in regards to addressing it.

Somewhere along the line, we need to address the Tuesday evening meetings in some way, shape or form.

To get back to your first question on my reaction, I’m not necessarily going to give you my full reaction here at the table. Being from Newfoundland and Labrador — and knowing the importance of travel to outside the Ottawa bubble — and dealing with the Fisheries Committee for the past number of years, dealing with people within the Department of Fisheries, who the only water many of them have seen is Rideau Canal, it’s very difficult to even have a conversation with these people about the importance of what this industry is to Atlantic Canada, Quebec, British Columbia and many other parts of the country, as well as up north.

I believe travel is important. When we went before SEBS and got turned down, I’m no good for these half loaves of bread. I want the full loaf. We couldn’t do what we wanted to do in regards to our hearings in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have an 86-year-old gentleman that has fished for almost 70 years that wants to come before our committee. He has never had a computer in his life. He lives six hours from St. John’s. To get him to St. John’s for a public hearing is going to be a job enough but to get him to come to Ottawa is out of the question. But the wealth of knowledge that he could bring to our committee on our seal study, to me, is invaluable.

We should be trying to accommodate these people, not trying to accommodate the Senate, not trying to accommodate ourselves around this table. We should be trying to accommodate the people we want to hear from. And in doing that, we need to go out into the communities and learn first-hand what these people are saying and get out of the Ottawa bubble. I believe that travel is important to all committees, because our most important mandate is the minorities of this country. In a lot of cases, they are a long way from the Ottawa bubble, so I think travel is important.

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Manning, I want to tell you that as one of the newer members of the committee, I really appreciate the fact that when busy season comes, you don’t hold Tuesday meetings, and that way the witnesses are not upset because they came and they couldn’t appear, and the senators know we are not sitting that day. I really appreciate that, and I want to thank you for that.

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Manning and Senator Busson. I also have the pleasure of being on the Fisheries Committee. I love all the members on the committee. I think we work really well together and that’s a tribute to the two of you, so thank you very much for that.

I would like to talk about communications. We have the most wonderful reports in the Senate and sometimes Canadians don’t know that much about them. One of the things that the two of you organized that worked very well was our report Peace on the Water. The release was done in Halifax at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic. We had so many media people there. Nova Scotia senators were invited to attend, and many of them did.

That was an example of the public knowing what we did. How do we ensure that the excellent reports that are done by all committees are actually communicated well? We’re also doing a follow-up on the report and getting government officials back and that, again, is more communications on keeping that particular study at the forefront. How do committees ensure that the public knows about the great work we are doing?

Senator Manning: Thank you for the question, Senator Cordy, and thank you for your interest and involvement with the Fisheries Committee. As you may remember, we had to fight for that also, because they wanted the news conference to be held here in downtown Ottawa. Again, I didn’t agree with that either. On behalf of the committee, I went back and we fought to have the report released where we knew, number one, that we would get really good coverage; number two, what we were talking about was about the people we were having the news conference around. People came from all around Atlantic Canada and different Indigenous groups; we had the chiefs there. We had people representing all different areas, who may not have had the ability to travel to Ottawa and to have the opportunity to hear our report and to question the results of the report.

Communications are vitally important. Again, I find it frustrating, to be honest with you, that we always have to be continuing to fight. If a 10-member committee sits down today and we unanimously decide that the best place to have a news conference to discuss our report is in Halifax, Vancouver or the Yukon, wherever we believe it is, I don’t think that should be questioned. Personally, I don’t think it should be questioned. We’re here representing our provinces and the country. We get down to nickel and diming and whether we are going to spend $50,000 to travel to Halifax — I’ll just use the figure of $50,000; I have no idea off the top of my head what it costs. When you take into consideration the cost of a news conference in Ottawa, when you take the array of people that are involved here, there may not be a whole lot of difference.

But the fact is that the coverage we received on our Peace on the Water report we would not have received if we had that news conference here in Ottawa. It had to be in Halifax or somewhere outside the Ottawa bubble.

I believe that if there is a unanimous decision of the committee to decide to travel to somewhere in this country to release a report, I don’t think it should be questioned. Yes, we have to watch out for the dollar; we have to watch out for our expenses. We present a proposal to the committee, SEBS or whoever the case may be. But I don’t think it should be questioned in that regard or saying, “No, you are not doing that; you are doing it here in Ottawa.” I was never a person for taking no for an answer. And when it comes to the work of our committee, I won’t be doing so in the future either.

Senator Cordy: We have also heard that for a 10-person committee, we’ll budget for 6 people to go. So 10 people have sat around for a year and a half studying an issue, and only a certain percentage are allowed to go. What do you think about that?

Senator Manning: Again, we get back to our discussion on this particular report. I had to ask Senator Cormier, who was a member of our committee at the time, if he would come to our news conference on his office’s dime in order to have a person with French sitting at the table. Myself, Senator Francis and Senator Christmas at the time were presenting the report with the other senators such as yourselves, but we didn’t have anybody who could speak the second language.

When we went back to look for funding — I think it was $1,700, if memory serves me correct — to have Senator Cormier travel with us, they turned us down. So I went back to Senator Cormier asked him, from the goodness of his own heart, if he would travel down to Nova Scotia today because we had reporters there who were asking questions in French. Now, I consider myself bilingual, but my second language is not necessarily the one we use here in Canada — “Newfinese.”

But Senator Cormier came to us on his own goodwill, and we had a person sitting at the front of the table who could answer questions in French. The concern I have is what story would have come out of that news conference that day if we had to have two French reporters who were present asking questions in French and nobody at the head of that table able to answer them in their language. To me, that’s not the Senate of Canada. That’s bull, in my view. Anyway, that’s my opinion.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: I thank my colleagues for being here as witnesses. Senator Manning, I heard you say that, in your committee, you have gender parity, which is good. You also have some diversity. However, what about the diversity of witnesses? How can your committee invite witnesses? Are there challenges in relation to finding witnesses from rural communities, northern communities and Indigenous peoples? How does your committee manage to find them?

I understand that you had some witnesses who would be very important, but because of the distance or technological limitations, they cannot testify. Aside from these challenges, are there other challenges to getting the diversity of witnesses you need for the committee?

[English]

Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Mégie. As with any committee, I guess, there are some challenges with inviting witnesses and we touched on those earlier. Over the years, I rely on the committee members to bring forward names and suggestions of those that they would like us to invite, along with the ones I have suggested as chair, but all committee members have an opportunity to bring forward names. We have had great success in receiving our witnesses, but at the same time, there are challenges related to travel because some of the people — when I was growing up in Newfoundland and Labrador the average age in the fishing industry at that time was in the 30s. The average age of people involved in the fishing industry today is mid 50s. So there is an aging population there in that industry.

We reach out as much as we can. We have had a great variety of witnesses from all backgrounds. It’s always a challenge but it’s not something that really is a major challenge for us. The biggest challenge for us is the further away the witnesses are, it becomes a challenge to get them to travel to Ottawa. And in some places, technology doesn’t allow us to be able to connect with them, as much as in some ways they want to. But technology doesn’t allow them to do so, especially in small, remote communities.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: My question will be the same one I put earlier to the first panel. I will summarize since you were there and you heard it.

In the production of your committee reports, how do you see the proposal to produce texts side by side — in English on one side and in French on the other? Would that facilitate the tasks for you — especially for our colleague Senator Manning, as chair of the committee? Do you think it would be more effective for your committee to work with a bilingual version?

[English]

Senator Manning: Thank you again, Senator Mégie. I don’t know if anything can help me when it comes to that. I’m up for trying, believe you me. That may be a possibility.

Senator Cormier was with us for some time. Things that we say in English are said differently in French and then when they interpret it sometimes, it’s not exactly what it was in English. It’s important that we make sure that for what we’re saying in English, we’re saying the same thing in French.

With regard to how the report is structured, I’m not necessarily concerned with that. If I read my English report and somebody else wants to read the French report in its totality, that wouldn’t be a concern of mine. As long as it’s available, and it has to be in both official languages so people can read it properly. We have great people here who work at that, who make sure that what we say in our own language that we’re saying in another is the same thing. I’m okay with how the reports are presented.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: Senator Busson, do you have a comment?

[English]

Senator Busson: I have noticed cases in the past when I have been in the Senate where people who are fluently bilingual will draw to the attention of the senator or to a committee that the translation is not exactly the same. So I agree your submission that perhaps if they are side by side, it accords a much better opportunity to make sure that both of them are congruent. That would make sense.

The Deputy Chair: Senator Busson, could you just expand on your comment, because probably everyone who sits on the Fisheries Committee is well aware of what you are talking about, but I’m not.

In your opening remarks, you made a comment about a government response that I believe hadn’t been received. I think it was to a study that you had presented or something like that, if you could just tell us a bit about that.

Senator Busson: We’re still in the midst of analyzing the government’s response to an extensive report that we did on the treaty rights of Indigenous persons, specifically we dealt with the East Coast vis-à-vis the Marshall decision and the Supreme Court decision on the Marshall case. I think I made the comment that the report was reasonably accepted by the Indigenous groups involved but not so much by the DFO.

Just to quickly expound on that, we made some fairly I would say revolutionary recommendations around DFO giving up a lot of their responsibilities to CIRNAC. That isn’t even in the conversation as we look at the response from DFO, at this point. We’re still digging and looking at answers, but this report and the reports that we would do, we try to put in a response component so that it just doesn’t get shelved that the government is called to account. My comment was more to point out that we were asking for answers from the government.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you. And CIRNAC, what is that?

Senator Busson: I know what it is, the acronym.

Senator Manning: In regards to another department — we want Department of Fisheries and Oceans to pass over the Aboriginal rights, to be overseeing that.

The Deputy Chair: All right. And Senator Manning, I wanted to ask you questions as well, similar to what I asked Senator Black at our earlier panel. Over the last number of years, occasionally some senators have contended that the Fisheries Committee should merge with another committee. You have served as chair for 12 years, as you told us today. I would like you to tell us why that idea should or should not be pursued?

Senator Manning: Thank you for the question. I’m not sure you are going to like my answer. Before I begin, I want to take your time for a minute to give a bit of a history lesson.

In 1949, when Newfoundland and Labrador joined Confederation, we brought the most lucrative fishing industry grounds on earth to the Canadian Confederation. Since then, all levels of government, all types of government, all political stripes of government have used the fishery for bartering and for trade in different parts of the country. The small boat fishery in my province didn’t destroy the fishery.

The permission to allow foreigners, fishing fleets, the permission to allow the sealing population to go through the roof because everybody is afraid to talk about it — doesn’t matter who is in power in Ottawa, on a ladder, the fishery is on the bottom rung. My 16 years of experience here in Ottawa leads me to believe that if we don’t have a committee dedicated to the fishing industry, we won’t even be on the ladder. We will be pushed to the side because of other important issues. And I fully understand other issues that people find important.

We did a major study on aquaculture, as an example. I travelled down to the Boston seafood show, and 65% of fish consumed in the world today is from farmed products. The wild fishery is in decline for a number of reasons, climate change and so on and so forth.

The fishing industry of this country is not important in any shape or form to whoever is in power in Ottawa, bar none. And I don’t take sides in that. You know what my political stripe is, and I condemned the Conservative governments of the past and Liberal governments of the past and anybody else. It’s not taken seriously enough in my view.

We as a Fisheries Committee have the opportunity to study important issues such as search and rescue, seal population, the Indigenous rights fisheries and so on and so forth, and at least present a report and keep whoever is in government at the time on their toes to try to deal with some of these important issues.

Yes, everybody is concerned about the number of committees. The bottom line is we’re not here to sit down. We’re here to work, and if we have to rearrange our schedules, if we have to extend our meeting times — again, it’s the minorities that we’re dealing with. In my view, people involved in the fishing industry in this country are in a minority. If we lose that voice here at this table, if we lose that voice here in the Senate, the issues and concerns of the livelihoods of these people are going to be lost down to the wayside.

The fishery has been a social engineering project for all levels of government. It’s managed for political value instead of economic benefit. And I think we have to keep the feet to the fire. That’s my humble opinion.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning. I was saying earlier to Senator Black on agriculture, I understand that coming from the West, from Saskatchewan. It’s interesting to hear your take on that. I appreciate it.

Senator MacDonald: Thank you, colleagues, for being here today. Senator Manning will remember when we first came into the Senate, we were both on the Fisheries Committee. I was on it for a number of years. I share your sentiments in terms of looking out for the best interests of the industry and that there is too much social engineering going on with the industry.

With that being said, I do want to go back to the structures of our committees, and I think it would be best put together. I want to pick up on what the chair was speaking about, and not so much fisheries in this instance, but oceans. It isn’t just an ocean fishery, we have a lake fishery in this country, so it’s a little misleading. But I see oceans as probably being better served as being part of the Environment Committee. I’m just curious what your opinion is on this.

When I look back on the work we did on the Fisheries Committee, there really wasn’t much done about oceans. It was all about the industry itself. Can you respond to that?

Senator Manning: I respectfully totally disagree.

Senator MacDonald: Okay.

Senator Manning: Front and centre now in so many discussions here in Ottawa — and not only here in Ottawa, but around the world — are about the environment, and rightly so. I agree 100%. We have 200 icebergs off of Newfoundland and Labrador this year; trying to convince people there is climate change going on in the world is not easy in small communities. But we all know that climate change is a big issue.

Taking the Fisheries and Oceans Committee and putting it in with the environment goes right back to what I said earlier.

Senator MacDonald: No, I didn’t say fisheries. I said taking oceans out and putting it with the environment.

Senator Manning: Taking oceans out and putting it with the environment. I haven’t thought about that, to be honest, Senator MacDonald, but that’s something I could certainly talk to my committee about.

It is the fishing industry itself that we spend most of our time studying, and I agree with that. And right now, at the present time, we’re trying to conduct a study into the sealing industry. At the same time, we have eight or nine requests from different groups around the country, looking for us to do studies on different issues on the industry, and we’re trying to deal with the budget review, and we’re trying to deal with licensing , et cetera, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I don’t rule that out. I haven’t thought about that, to be honest with you, but that is something that we would discuss at our committee, not a decision I would make on my own. I may never win the day at the end of the day, but I will forever fight for the right of fisheries to be front and centre here in the Senate of Canada.

Senator MacDonald: The point I just made about the oceans part of it is that we never studied much about oceans.

Senator Manning: No.

Senator MacDonald: It was always the industry itself, and all the determinations that have been made over the last number of years in regards to the oceans have been pushed by Environment and Climate Change Canada. So I just thought it was something —

Senator Manning: That is something that we’d have to look into.

Senator Busson: If I might add my own comments to that, and to Senator Manning’s response, I tend to agree with him.

In my opinion, the mandates of all the committees are so broad that if there is an issue that comes up that is the oceans, vis-à-vis the environment, it would push that mandate and that study in another direction. We have enough flexibility within the mandate that we have and the mandate of other committees that it would allow for the specificity to make common sense, the answer to where a study or a bill might go.

Senator Marwah: Welcome, colleagues. Good to see you.

My question is the same as the one I asked the previous set of witnesses. As we try and solve the myriad of problems with a finite capacity to deal with it, in what order of priority would you solve the problems? I mentioned three or four solutions. One is to sit when the Senate is sitting; the second is to extend the days when we sit and the times for that, which is Mondays and Fridays; or we reduce the number of committees. There are smaller solutions, such as rotating when we sit and moving the committees around, but that doesn’t solve the problem. It just pushes the problem onto another committee.

Of the three major ways to solve this problem, how would you rank them?

Senator Manning: I am going to go to that old famous song by Meat Loaf, “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad.” So I am going to go with your first two. Sitting when the Senate is sitting is something we should be looking at, I truly believe, and extending our days or hours or whatever the case may be. I think that would solve a lot of the issues that some of the committees are facing — issues with the schedules and things, but there are issues with schedules today. Some people are sitting on several committees, have to leave one and to sit on another, or the chamber. But we need to look at the opportunity to sit when the Senate is sitting.

Certainly, I’m open to discussions on Monday evening meetings or Thursday evening meetings or Friday meetings, whatever the case may be, and I live on the far end of this country. But, I mean, having the three-day workweek is pretty good. Extend it to four and still have a three-day long weekend wouldn’t be too bad either. We could be looking at things in a different light without compromising the work of the committees here in the Senate. That would be my opinion.

Senator Busson: If I can add to that, I don’t disagree, but someone — I think it was Senator Griffin — brought up the solution about the two-hour break at suppertime too. I think there’s a way to maximize that opportunity in the Tuesday meetings. You talked about reducing the numbers of committees, and the other side of that coin is having three-hour meetings and is also a part of the solution around trying to get more work done within the parameters of what we’re allowed.

Senator Manning: May I add, in your discussions, if you decide we’re going to go with three- or three-and-a-half-hour meetings, we should be able to get a cup of tea and a croissant to go along with it.

Senator Marwah: If you can’t get travel, you’re not getting croissants.

Senator Manning: And that’s my French for today.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you both for being here today. Greatly appreciated. I’m reluctant to repeat the questions and some of the answers we’ve heard already. However, is there anything else that you think that we can be doing that will make fellow senators that aren’t on those committees better aware of the work of the committee and Canadians more aware of the work of the committee? If you have anything else you want to add to that lane of the conversation, both of you, that would be great.

Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for the question. It gets back to communications, and I may not be the best person to ask that question of. I’m not on any social media. My daughter tells me I’m too opinionated. I don’t know where she gets that. But the fact is that we need to do more to communicate the work we’re doing here in the Senate, and social media is a great opportunity to do that, but giving us the opportunity to travel around our country more. We are hoping to be approved on Thursday to be able to travel to Newfoundland and Labrador as part of our seal study and to hold public hearings there. I have people already who hope or think that we’re going there and calling me, as chair, and asking, “Can we appear?” I have media who are inquiring already, and we’re not planning to go until September.

We sit here and we wonder why people don’t know of our work, but there are not that many people tuned in to the Senate channel, believe it or not, and the fact is that it’s in our best interests, in my view, to get out of the Ottawa bubble, to promote the Senate where we can, to have public hearings. A fact-finding mission to the northern part of Newfoundland is not going to garner us a whole lot of communication, but having a public hearing in St. John’s — and I’d love to have the public hearing in Twillingate, but the media won’t travel to Twillingate because it’s six hours away. In the judgment of the committee, we go to St. John’s, where at least we can get the witnesses to come in, but we’ll also get the media coverage and the communication and the promotion of our work. I think we don’t do enough of that, because we’re sitting here wondering if we can spend a dollar here or spend a dollar there, and yes, I understand we have to do that, but we cannot reduce that opportunity to the detriment of the work that we’re doing in the chamber.

Senator Busson: Again, it’s pretty hard to disagree with anything that Senator Manning is saying, with his experience, et cetera, but I do believe that travel is one of the keys to getting our message across. And if we truly believe that the committee work is the most important work that the Senate does, we need to be able to speak that through funding and support to get the word out there to the rest of Canada. The Senate exists for Canadians. It’s not the other way around. So we should be reaching out and building our credibility in places.

I know where I live, I tell people I’m a senator and what I do, and it’s like another world. There are hundreds of thousands of people who live in the Thompson-Okanagan Valley, but in British Columbia, the world ends at the Chilliwack-Hope border, so people are forgotten in the area of the world where I live. And if there was ever a Senate committee that came to the Thompson‑Okanagan region, I can assure you there would be a lot of attention paid to that.

The other thing — and I will just throw this out — is that although I’m five years in the Senate, I still consider myself a bit of a newbie. I remember when I first sat on the Fisheries and Oceans committee in the very beginning in 2018, and the committee was just finishing an incredible report on maritime safety and work done around that. I was blown away by the depth and the importance of this work. And when it was tabled, it was tabled — laid on the table and tabled, and we moved on to something else.

I was surprised 10 or 15 minutes weren’t allotted for the chair of the committee to give an executive summary of what was in the report. That way, at least people in the Senate and those few who tune into the Senate Chamber sittings might, at least, be enticed to open the report and have a look.

Perhaps that’s just a newbie observation; there might be a million reasons why that could never happen. But there’s such good work that comes out of those reports, and it always makes me feel sad that there isn’t some opportunity, officially, to lay out the groundwork of what is in the report so people can either be made aware of that or be motivated to have a look.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator M. Deacon: You hear it a lot —

The Deputy Chair: Will you just be brief? Maybe I can put you on the second round.

Senator M. Deacon: I’ll finish that question. You mentioned the committee work being the heart of the work we do. We think that, and I think senators believe that, but Canadians will think of a bill; they’ll think of what was in the House for us. So it’s all these pieces we need to do to make that more important.

Senator Manning: Canadians will think about the report if it affects them. We went to Halifax, and released our Peace on the Water report. There was nothing about bills that day; it was all about our report and the feedback we received, because the report affected these people, their lives, their communities and their futures. It’s the same way with search and rescue and other reports we’ve done. It’s if the report affects them.

Our job is to enlarge that knowledge of the report. The people who are affected by the report will know about it. It’s the people outside that circle that we need to get to.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Senator Busson, I think there is a way for senators presenting a report as chair from the committee that it is then an item on the Order Paper, or it can be. You can choose to present it and simply lay it on the table, or you can have it on the Order Paper where there can be a brief time for dealing with it. I could be wrong.

Senator Busson: It should be utilized more often. I would encourage people to do that.

The Deputy Chair: Good idea.

Another thing to mention is that the Senate Communications Directorate — if they’re not already doing this, they should be — deal specifically with particular sectors and the online and physical publications that deal with particular sectors. So when you’re doing a report, and you’re getting all of that great — you were in Halifax to deal with media there, but they’re also relaying the information that a report just came out and there are senators you can speak with to get more information. That’s an important part of it too. When our Legal Committee was doing a court delay study, we had those types of outreach activities happening so we made sure people knew about it across the country.

Senator Ringuette: I’ll start with a comment. Every committee that has appeared before us as of yet has talked to us about the limitation on travel. So as Rules is looking into creating efficiency in committees and how the operations moves forward, there’s certainly room for CIBA with regard to creating efficiencies for committee travel. Here is what I’m saying, and I’d like your comments afterward.

Every senator has 63 travel points to move back and forth from their constituency for Senate business. I consider Senate committees Senate business. Therefore, senators should be able to take their 63 travel points, to some extent — it could be maybe 20 at the most or something like that in a given year — just like within the 63 travel points, 4 can be used to travel to the U.S. on Senate business or Canada/U.S. parliamentary business.

I really have trouble accepting that senators working on a committee and that committee needing to travel within the country or outside of the country for that purpose is being limited. The budgets of committees in regards to travelling in their request to CIBA should be, for the clerk, the analysts and whatever little room rental or something like that. The rest can all be taken into consideration under the 63 travel points.

That’s my comment, which is a request for your comments on that.

Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Ringuette. And thank you for your time you spent on the Fisheries Committee also.

I’m not totally against your suggestion. The issue we always seem to run into when we’re seeking funding to travel is not necessarily — as in some cases, you know — with the senators travel themselves. As an example, we sit down as a committee, and we decide we’re going to travel. Out of 10 of us, there are 3 that who are unavailable to go. But we’re not encouraged to put in a budget for 7; we’re encouraged to put in a budget for 10 — put in for everybody.

So that kind of throws out our budget, even though we know that maybe 6 out of 10 will be able to travel. That’s one part of it.

The question doesn’t necessarily come up a whole lot with that side of it as much; when we got turned down — when we put in the travel budget for Newfoundland and Labrador for the seal study, the biggest cost was in the day of public hearings. I don’t know who is on the committee — I don’t really care — but the bottom line is that they cut the day of public hearings, which was the whole purpose of going to hear from people.

It boggles my mind how the decisions are made in relation to that.

Again, I don’t rule it out. When we did the release in Halifax, Senator Cormier travelled on his points. It was a decision he made himself, and I’m sure there’s room for that. No doubt it’s a suggestion as something we could be looking at, especially within the country. I don’t know if everybody uses up their 63 or 64 travel points. I never use all mine, and I come from Newfoundland. There are always opportunities — so many for staff, so many for family and you could put aside so many that could be used at a time of death.

That’s something that could be open to a discussion.

Senator Busson: I think you raised a very interesting point, senator, with regard to the travel points. Even with the concept of travel points, my travel points costs the government a whole lot more money than perhaps Senator Ataullahjan’s travel points or yours just because of where I live. I probably run one of the biggest travel budgets, and I don’t do other travel — not much, anyway — and very seldomly even bring my spouse to the Senate.

So perhaps it’s time, vis-à-vis the fact that I don’t hear a lot of people arguing that we shouldn’t have more Senate travel. It’s all about worrying about or being concerned about — and rightfully so — the use of a certain amount of money to make sure that we can afford this travel. Maybe it’s time for a scrub-down on the way that budgets are allotted and the fact that if everyone has X number of travel points, how many people don’t use them? How can those be reused in another way to augment other budgets?

Senator Ringuette: From my perspective, it would have to be from the individual senators themselves — they decide to do it that way — and for CIBA to amend some of the SOMP rules to consider a Senate committee meeting outside of Ottawa to be Senate business.

Senator Busson: Yes.

Senator Ringuette: It’s very simple. Chair, a quick —

The Deputy Chair: We’re running out of time, so if you can keep it to 30 seconds, that would be great.

Senator Ringuette: It’s the first time that we’re hearing this at this committee.

Senator Busson, you said that you wish senators could participate via hybrid, via Zoom.

The Deputy Chair: That is more than 30 seconds, but if you could just respond very briefly. Thank you.

Senator Busson: I will respond briefly.

We saw today with Senator Griffin the value of having the opportunity for people to participate. Because on Mondays, if I’m travelling, I could participate in a committee via video conference on Mondays or Fridays, even mid-travel. There are so many ways that we could exercise our right to be participating in Senate business with video conferencing.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Senator Black: Senator Manning, in my role as Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee and with my lens from agriculture, I continually hear from aquaculture folks and commercial fishers — the sector — that those should be under agriculture and under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

What should I tell them when they want to talk issues and those issues fall under the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, your committee?

Senator Manning: Tell them to come see us.

The bottom line is that agriculture is a very important industry in the country also, and Senator Black, you do a wonderful job of representing that industry in the Senate.

The issues that you bring forward that I had the opportunity to listen to are numerous, and I’m sure that whatever topics you are dealing with at agriculture today, there are another 10 over here that you could be dealing with.

We are not going to be able to be all things to everybody out there, and it’s the same with the fisheries. We have a list of 10 or 12 topics that we could be studying at the present time. We have to decide, as a committee, which one we feel is most important today.

And we have people who are strong believers that aquaculture is farming, as an example, so some of that discussion may be coming from there. But I truly believe that if we combined these two, for example, instead of you having a list of 8 topics, and I have a list of 8 topics, there would be a list of 16 that we wouldn’t be able to deal with. We can’t do everything, and we can’t be everything to everybody, but I think these are industries that are very important to our country, they are very important to the people that are involved in them, and we have to make sure that their voices are heard as best as possible here in the Senate.

Senator Black: Thank you.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. Just a reminder that next Tuesday is National Seal Products Day.

I’ve noticed that we’ve been talking about communications with the public, but very often we don’t even know in the Senate what other committees are studying. I’ve noticed in the past that committee chairs or deputy chairs would stand up, and they would say that after discussion within their own committee, three or four suggestions would come up, and the committee would vote or just make a decision on what they were going to study. And then the chair or the deputy chair would get up and talk about what the study was going to be in the Senate.

Now I’m noticing that senators are coming forward and bringing forward studies for committees, and sometimes the senator who is bringing it up is not even on the committee where they want the study to take place.

What should we do so that senators also know what other committees are studying?

Senator Busson, you said once the committee report is finished that we should be talking about it in the Senate, but what about actually deciding what studies committees should be doing so that people, if you’re interested in seals or you’re interested in whatever the topic might be, and you know a committee is studying it, then you could sit in on it if you wished to?

Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Cordy.

I believe that we should be arranging somehow within our chamber during the week to at least have a briefing on some of the work that a couple of the committees are doing, just to allow other senators to be aware of that. Take 15 minutes for the chair or deputy chair of committees and maybe do two or three committees a week.

We go down into the chamber some days — not all days — and we’ve gone home at quarter after three, or we’ve gone back to Ralph’s at quarter after three. There are days that we could be expanding on our discussion around our committee work. I think educating our fellow senators on what we’re doing would engage not only suggestions but also maybe some great avenues to follow up on.

I was in the Senate early on when the former senator George Baker got up and asked me a question as the chair of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, and I didn’t even know you could do that. Anyway, he put me on trial that day, and it was baptism by fire, but it garnered some other questions. It creates that conversation.

I think somewhere within the rules we should be finding a way to promote the committee’s work in the Senate from time to time to engage with our fellow senators.

Senator Ringuette: If I can have a comment, I concur with Senator Manning.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Manning and Senator Busson.

I have a question on membership. Of course, any senator can attend a committee meeting and attend as a senator but not have voting rights.

What is your view of a senator who might have a particular interest in a topic that you’re studying for which you will be travelling, and that senator is not a full-time member of the committee? What is your view of that senator travelling with you, using their own points or whatever other abilities they have within the Senate travel system, who may not be a full-time member of the committee?

Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Wells.

I welcome that for a number of reasons. One, we don’t have and — I don’t think — many committees don’t have representation from every province and every territory in the country, just because of our numbers. If we were travelling to a province tomorrow where we didn’t have a senator from that province, I think it would be advantageous for the committee and the Senate to make sure that someone from that province would be able to accompany us.

If we’re studying a particular topic that some senator may have expertise in, and he or she is not a member of the committee, I, as chair, and, I’m sure, our committee members would welcome that to the table to be part of that discussion.

I think that’s a great idea, and it is something that should be explored. If I can come to Ottawa and sit down at any committee meeting and participate as a senator, why shouldn’t I be allowed to do that if the committee is travelling?

I don’t know about other committees, but we never end up with a full complement of a committee travelling, or very seldom. Because of scheduling or family issues, whatever the case may be, we may end up with two or three short, so why not add on a senator that adds perspective to that work that we are doing?

No, I think it’s a great idea.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Manning.

Senator Busson: I totally agree.

Senator Wells: Thank you for that.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, first of all, to Senator Manning and Senator Busson for being here to tell us about the important work of your committee, the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, and thank you to all senators for being here this week and for your important questions. See you next week.

(The committee adjourned.)