Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 3, 1996
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met jointly this day at 12:00 p.m. to consider the restructuring of Senate Committees.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier and Senator Colin Kenny (Chairmen) in the Chair.
[English]
Senator Gauthier: I thank you all for coming to assist with the work of this committee today. I will make a brief statement on what we want to do today, after which Senator Kenny will present the paper that he has prepared with the help of his committee. There will then be an opportunity for questions. I have sent all of you a complete dossier of every document that we have.
Before we start, you will know that we had an informal joint meeting with the House of Commons to review the rules for joint committees. We have been working at that matter for a year and a half to two years, and the work is now pretty well been completed. Therefore, this committee will be called upon to comment on that proposal. We will then bring it to our respective caucuses and try to convince them that we need some standing orders for the special joint committees that are occasionally created. We will then report to our respective houses for approval.
Having said that, that is not of immediate concern. The matter has simply been dragging on because of lack of meetings, for which I apologize.
[Translation]
An institution that does not renew itself runs the risk of self-destructing or disappearing. It is absolutely essential that we renew and restructure certain committees and perhaps even overhaul them. I know that Senator Robertson circulated a document last year, a questionnaire which you all received and which was prepared for your use. I wish to inform you that these discussions will begin shortly. The questionnaire itself will be helpful to us. I have also had the Library of Parliament prepare a paper entitled "Political Parties and the Canadian Senate" which I invite you to read. It gives an overview of the problems we face, particularly with respect to independent senators.
The companion to the Senates Rule also needs to be updated. This is long overdue. The committee will study this material and update it.
[English]
Having said that, the restructuring of our committees in the Senate is an important matter. I will ask Senator Kenny to give us an overview of the paper. After that, we will receive some questions.
Senator Kenny: On behalf of all of us here, I would like to say how pleased we are to see you in the chair, Senator Gauthier. We know what a special effort it takes for you to come here. We are grateful to you for the effort you make.
Senator Gauthier: Thank you. It is part of my rehabilitation.
Senator Kenny: I would first like to say a word or two about the process. I am sure that some of you, particularly those on the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, wonder what business it is of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to get involved in such matters. The Senate went through this same process some years ago, whereby the Rules Committee started on some initiative and found that its recommendations were stymied when the matter went before the Committee on Internal Economy, so that nothing ever resulted from that initiative. I was a member of the Rules Committee at that time, and found it frustrating that the process did not work.
At that time there were precedents for procedural guidelines on the financial operation of Senate committees which had gone forward in the 1980s. We checked with the procedural people before we proceeded with this matter. Senator Gauthier and I worked out a way in which we could combine the talents of these two committees which, at some point, need to mesh to make the whole thing function.
There is no question in my mind, and I do not think there is any question in the minds of those of us who are members only of the Internal Economy committee, that this is principally a Rules game. We see this as one proposal to go forward to the Rules Committee, among several others that that committee will consider. That is fair ball. In the course of preparing the document which is before you, we have tried to make certain assumptions, and to show where there is certain flexibility in the system.
Frankly, we view our document as a starting point that will probably look very different by the time the members of the Rules Committee are finished with it. We also look at it as simply one of the inputs which the Rules Committee will consider and deal with.
The purpose of this joint meeting is to have an opportunity to discuss the paper which I presume you have before you. It calls for an increase of committees from 12 to 15. There is nothing magic about the number 15. It could be 14 or 18. We wanted to see whether 15 committees could meet, given the number of rooms we have and the number of translators and reporters that we have.
In the process of working on this initiative we took a look at whether we could balance the workload a little better among the various committees. There have been concerns expressed by some committees that they do not have enough to do; other committees have indicated that they are being worked to the point where they cannot adequately consider all of the matters coming before them. In other words, there is just too much work coming their way.
We saw some problems inherent in the committee structure. One was that the committees, generally, seem to have too many members. Members would often complain that they did not have a chance to participate in discussions when there was a witness of particular interest appearing before them. Obviously, there are a variety of ways that this situation could be dealt with. We could have subcommittees dealing with certain matters, or task forces, or a number of other things. This paper argues for more committees, which would be smaller in size. That is what we are putting on the table. However, there could be other solutions.
Absenteeism is a problem that has arisen. It is one that makes the institution fairly vulnerable. Charts have appeared in newspapers demonstrating that there is basically a 50 per cent absentee rate in the Senate. Upon closer examination we discover that the reason for such a rate is not that senators are not doing their jobs, but that senators are sitting on more than one committee. When two committees are meeting at the same time, the statistics are not very attractive. The point is that senators sit on a multiplicity of committees with conflicting times.
We have also had many interventions from our colleagues who wanted policy areas covered which simply were not being covered under the current committee structure. That does not mean that they could not be covered under the current committee structure; it is simply that they currently are not being covered.
There are also groups of senators who want to have a special committee for themselves on a particular subject, rather than a subcommittee working elsewhere.
There is a lack of opportunity for full participation in some committees. There is an imbalance in workload on various committees. This paper argues for more specialized committees.
In the past several years, senators have argued for the establishment of new committees on such matters as national defence, internal security, national capital, forestry, environment, preventive health care, human rights, national unity, and security and intelligence.
In this paper, we have recommended three new standing committees: human rights, defence and security. We have also indicated in the appendices how the workload might be redistributed to reduce the heavy workload on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
We have also proposed a national unity committee, although that name may not be the final one chosen. The formation of a national unity committee was seen as an opportunity to lighten the workload on some other committees, as well as to provide an opportunity to look at specific regions, rather than using the usual sectoral approach. That would give a different perspective in the Senate on some issues. In the past five years we have had three major, special joint committees studying constitutional reform and national unity matters.
Another busy committee is the Banking Committee, which would have a more manageable workload if some of its work was redistributed as suggested here: Taxation and legislation matters would go to the National Finance Committee; customs and excise matters would go to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The mandate for consumer affairs would move from the Social Affairs Committee to the newly named Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and Consumer Affairs. There are many ways of dividing things up. This presentation is intended to be a starting point for discussions.
Turning briefly to the concept of attendance, we have some controversial elements here. One key idea is that of associate membership. I mentioned earlier that just one-half of the permanent membership of committees attend any given meeting of the 12 standing committees. With the exception of the Internal Economy Committee and the Rules Committee, each committee has 12 members, indicating that the average attendance for a committee meeting is approximately 6. We are suggesting that smaller standing committees with individual memberships would eliminate conflicting meetings for most senators, and would effectively reduce the attendance problems.
We also think that one way to address attendance is the concept of associate membership. Such associate members who would be eligible to sit as substitutes, and also as full members of subcommittees. The controversial part is the suggestion that if the attendance of a full-time member drops below 75 per cent, then an associate member could move up and take the place of a full-time member, on the assumption that if someone is serious about a committee, they will attend its meetings on a regular basis. If they are not prepared to attend such meetings, then perhaps an associate who is prepared to attend should move up.
Frankly, it has been difficult for the Whips to address this question in the past. However, if it were to be done on a numerical basis, it would be somewhat easier to handle. We also felt that a smaller committee size would make it easier for committee members to choose the studies in which they want to get involved.
Some committees here are administrative in nature, being the Rules Committee and the Internal Economy Committee. We are suggesting that it is reasonable that someone might sit on one of the housekeeping committees in addition to participating on a policy committee.
Our first goal is a more balanced distribution of the workload. Thereafter, we need a better breakdown among policy areas. We want to pick up some new policy areas which various senators have identified. We also need some scheme to eliminate the scheduling conflicts which currently exist. In addition, we need a scheme to reduce absenteeism, which is very high according to the statistics of our committees. We want opportunities for more concentrated work by members who actually sit on committees. Again, I refer back to the fact that some members get very frustrated when there is a good witness there but the allotted time runs out before they can ask their questions.
There would also be a greater opportunity under this proposal for more senators to serve as chairs and deputy chairs of committees. Frankly, when someone is a chair or a deputy chair of a committee, they tend to focus better, work harder, and make things happen.
I have talked about increased opportunity for questioning. There would be opportunity for associate memberships on committees to allow a senator to sit in on committees of interest, to receive the documents and to take part in the subcommittees.
Smaller committees would work better with respect to video conferencing and travel arrangements. Here on the Internal Economy Committee, which as you know deals with the budgets of the committees, we notice that the bigger budgets are required by the committees that travel. Smaller committees would mean lower budgets, as far as travel is concerned. It is our conclusion, with perhaps a bit of a stretch, that these changes would mean no extra costs for the new committee structure.
To address the negatives of the proposals, there may be a need to tape and then transcribe later, some of the committees' work. I should tell you that already happens right now in the House of Commons. It also means that, on Mondays and Fridays when our reporters are not working as they are now, they could presumably be transcribing the tapes which were prepared.
There is a potential increase in the need for interpreters. That is not a direct cost to the Senate. They are supplied to us by the translation bureau.
We felt, on balance, that this was a proposal that deserved some consideration by the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. I must tell you that since the paper has been completed, I have thought of approximately 16 changes I would like to see reflected therein, two of which I will just mention in passing. One is that it may be that senators do not want to be attached to just one committee, and it is conceivable that we could come up with an A list and a B list of committees that did not have conflicting sitting times. That would improve the attendance issue. In other words, we would say that the A list sits at these times and in these rooms, and that the B list sits in a different set of rooms at a different time, and then every senator could be a member of two committees rather than only of one, without that sort of conflict.
The other thing that comes up and will affect us all in one way or another is how we deal with independent senators. This paper suggests that independent senators could become associate members of committees. Another way to deal with this question would be to say to the governing party, or to the party with the majority, if you will, that if they intend to have an independent senator sit on a committee, that will increase their membership size by one. In that way, there would be room for the independent senators to be included.
I know that dealing with independent senators is a controversial issue. However, I suggest that, if we do not take them into account at some point, we may find that they have their own ways of impacting on how the Senate operates when questions such as unanimous consent arise, or similar situations. I do not think that the paper deals well with independent senators, and I wanted to add that comment as a final footnote. I think we should at some point think more about how we handle independent senators.
Mr. Co-chairman, that summarizes as best I can the document that is before everyone here. I would be pleased to relinquish the floor to you at this point and deal with any questions, if that is your wish.
Senator Robertson: My first comment deals with process. How do we plan collectively? Obviously, the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders has been set aside by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and are we now to work in conjunction with Internal Economy? Have we a directive from the Chamber to that effect? I was not aware that the Internal Economy Committee was repeating this work which has been undertaken a couple of times previously by the Rules Committee. I was not aware that the Internal Economy Committee was working on this subject until I received your document last spring.
It is interesting to note, Senator Kenny, that most of the matters on which you have commented have been dealt with, in one form or another, by the Rules committee at some time or other -- without decisions of course. An example of that is the matter of the independents. A number of these issues have been taken to the various caucuses. We know the answers that we got from individual caucus members as well as our group caucuses on many of these issues.
In any event, though this process, is it the intention of the Internal Economy Committee to continue to do the work of the Rules Committee? I know that approximately a year ago, one of the recommendations made by the Rules Committee was that the Senate have fewer committees, rather than more. In other words, they were going in the other direction.
Another recommendations made at that time was to establish one administrative committee by combining these two committees, Internal Economy and Rules. Has action been taken in that direction? If it has, it has been done without consultation with the chamber, and certainly without consultation with the members of the opposition who sit on the Rules Committee, because we had no knowledge. Senator Gauthier, you may have had knowledge of this work in progress, but we certainly had no knowledge of it.
When I got notice to attend here today at noon hour, I had a meeting with some of the members of our caucus who serve on the Rules Committee. In other words, I pulled together a few of our members who sit on that committee. It was the general feeling at that gathering that if a committee were to recommend making such changes, we would, of course, have all this work done in committee and then present the financial implications of those changes to the Internal Economy Committee, after the changes had been approved and accepted by the Senate.
Our members found it a bit curious that a reverse position had been taken here, and that the Internal Economy Committee had decided to basically cover territory that has already been covered. Those of you who sat on the Rules Committee in the past know that we have spent considerable time on this type of discussion, but have been unable to achieve consensus in the Senate.
I am interested in how this committee intends to proceed with this matter. Certainly, the document that was circulated did indeed promote some discussion, but over the past year or two there have been several other documents that also promoted discussion or response.
In this case, I understand that the questionnaire was responded to by a number of senators, although I must point out that many senators did not bother to respond at all. It is interesting that there is a resurgence of interest in this project. I think this is a healthy response, after the total lack of interest displayed by certain members of the Senate to the attempts made by the Rules Committee in the past in this regard.
I really do not want to go into your report today, Senator Kenny, because in my opinion this is not the appropriate forum. This matter must be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders to decide what is to be done in respect of this reshuffling of committee structures. In addition, there are other recommendations from the Rules Committee itself that must be dealt with. By the same token, there is a counter argument by a number of people that we need no changes at all.
As I remarked to some of my colleagues, when I read that part about the 15 committees of an hour and a half each, or whatever the number is that is being suggested here, I had a strange vision in my head. Those of you who have worked on committees over the years will know what happens on certain mornings. Because of the fact that the first committee in a particular committee room cannot finish sharply at, say, 12 noon, the members from the next committee must sit and cool their heels while that first committee finishes its business, and there goes 10 minutes or sometimes 15 minutes, after which the second committee is left with an hour and a half to complete its business. If there is a substantive agenda, there is absolutely no way that any more than three or four senators can make a contribution in the time remaining.
I have always preferred a longer meeting of, perhaps, three hours, with a substantial and substantive agenda, rather than those meetings where we rush in and out. I can see the staff who serve our coffee spending half their time rushing back and forth between rooms pushing coffee carts, if we are not careful.
I am interested in the process, which perhaps is the only thing we should be discussing this morning. How will we proceed from here? I believe that is important for the integrity of the process.
Senator Kenny: I would be happy to address that. I am glad you agree that there are people who are unhappy with the way in which committees are structured now. I am glad you pointed out that there are several proposals coming forward.
Senator Robertson: They have come forward.
Senator Kenny: They will continue to come forward. This is no more than one of those proposals.
In the letter I sent to you personally, Senator Robertson, I made it clear that this was a Rules Committee issue; about that fact no one had any doubt. Both the Rules Committee and the Internal Economy Committee have the capacity to pick any subject they choose without a reference from the Senate. There is also precedent for the two committees to pass proposals back and forth, the one to the other, without any reference to the Senate. There is nothing unusual in that regard. There is nothing out of order. There are precedents for all of that.
From my perspective -- and I believe from the perspective of the other members of the Internal Economy Committee -- we do not expect to see anything again until the Rules Committee has decided what it wants to do, how it wants to do it, and the way in which it wishes to organize it. If the members come back and say, "We like it the way it is," that is what the committee will do. If the Rules Committee wishes to change something, they will change something, and the ball is in their court.
Modestly, I would hope that there is some information in here that might be new and helpful. If it is not, then that is fine; there is no problem, and no harm down, and none of your time has been wasted. If you do not find any use in this, do not deal with it. If you think there is something helpful here, pick it up. It is entirely up to the Rules Committee to decide how they want to handle it. That is why Senator Gauthier is here, and why we are having a joint meeting. It is to tell you, "Here is our contribution. If it helps, terrific; if it does not move the matter forward, then that is fine. You folks do whatever you like with it."
Senator Gauthier: I should like to add to that, Senator Robertson. I was not involved in preparing this paper. When I heard about it after Senator Kenny sent me a copy, I looked at it and said to myself, "Coming from the Chair of Internal Economy, it must have his imprimatur. In other words, he has looked at it from a financial point of view rather than from a rules point of view. Definitely we must have his support or the support of the Rules committee to proceed with it." I am giving you a new senator's point of view.
I phoned Senator Kenny and suggested a conference, which is what we are having today. We used to have those in the House of Commons, and conferences are simply the meeting of two committees which are possibly looking at a single issue and hearing a variety of views. One must take the financial view, and the other has the responsibility to take into account the implications of the rules and orders.
I was the one who asked for a meeting of this nature. Rather than go through the Senate and table the report in the Senate, I suggested that we have a committee meeting at which we could discuss these porposals. Other proposals are being prepared, and we will be looking at those this fall.
I am not offended. I know that the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders has the authority to initiate certain things itself. The honourable senator knows what we tried to do. She was there. We did not succeed because we always seemed to hit a stone wall with the financial implications as to whether there were enough rooms, clerks, and everything else.
Senator Robertson: Thank you for your comments, Senator Gauthier. It is an interesting process. It would seem that the best thing we can do is take this proposal, together with the myriad of information that we have from all of the other studies, back to the committee and circulate it among our own caucus members. Nothing will be done without the input of our caucus members. I think that is the way to handle this proposal.
Senator Gauthier: Are you saying we should send it now to all caucus members?
Senator Robertson: No, to the committee first, and then the caucuses, unless Senator Kenny wants to send this to the house as a report. He can report it. I do not really care. I am not offended, but I am curious. One of the things we have talked about on different occasions, and on which we have never come to any resolution, was having all committees operate in a similar manner and talk about the conduct of the committee, the chairs and deputy chairs, and that sort of thing. There are all kind of things to be put on the agenda, I must say.
We knew this topic would come back. I think the sooner it goes to the Rules Committee, to you, Senator Gauthier, the sooner we will have some chance of making some progress.
Senator Carstairs: Speaking as a member of the Internal Economy Committee, it was my understanding from the very beginning that this was simply a proposal that would be taken to the Rules Committee. That is, in fact, what we are doing today in presenting something that we have examined in Internal Economy. For what it is worth, we are presenting our findings to the Rules Committee, whose members have far more experience in dealing with the rules than does Internal Economy. You would take this as another document, along with a whole myriad of alternative documents, to study and analyze.
With respect to the Internal Economy Committee, our particular interest in this matter came about, I think it is fair to say, Senator Kenny, as regards space. In other words, could we have more committees, or should we have fewer committees? What were the demands on the space requirements? Yesterday, for example, I was asked not to use my committee room because Senator Kirby wished to use it for a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Of course we acceded to his request.
In relation to this plan, I have concerns about the pressures on individual senators, and how they can be expected to be in three places at the same time. I find that extremely difficult to do. I am sure my physique would benefit from being at least split in two, but even I could not do with being split in three. As a member of the Internal Economy Committee, those are some of the concerns that I have.
Let me be clear: It was never my intention -- and I do not think the intention of anyone else on the committee -- that we would make any finite decision on this matter. We considered that it was simply a proposal to send to the Rules Committee, in the hope that that committee would study it carefully as one more proposal of several.
Senator Robertson: I thank Senator Carstairs. I am sure our chairman will make certain that we study it, together with all the many other proposals that are before us. The same concern has been expressed many times, and by many senators: How can I serve on all of these committees at one time? We are very well aware of the issues, I must say.
Senator Maheu: I suppose my comments should be kept for a meeting of the Rules Committee. However, having come from the other place, and having sat in the Speaker's Chair in the other place, I find that it is so easy to find a solution to many of the problems I am hearing about, but I am not sure there is the will to find the solution. I think you are talking ad infinitum: "Let's talk and do another study instead of doing something." Stop talking and start doing. That is when things start to happen.
I was curious about the questionnaires. May I ask how many senators responded?
Mr. James Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament: I believe the summary you have states that 52 senators responded.
Senator Maheu: In a case like that where only half respond, I guess the others just are not interested. You work, then, on the half that responded. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. I know I am doing it again, and I did not want to, but I keep going back to the fact that I worked in a place where cooperation was the name of the game. Here, it is as though every person is acting as an individual. There seems to be no team effort.
In passing, Senator Robertson, when you say the senators are not given substantive time, in the few months that I have been attending committees, I have had occasion to sit in a committee where one senator took 20 minutes. In the other place, there are house rules to cover that situation. For the first rounds, each member gets ten minutes. In 20 minutes, two members could have been accommodated. If some senators takes 20 minutes, then other senators who want to ask questions because they have serious concerns cannot ask them because there is not enough time.
Senator Robertson: We have all gone through the frustrations that you are experiencing, Senator Maheu, in many forms. I do not know whether we can convince the members in the chamber of the need for change. We know the response from the various caucus members, at least as recently as last year, and there certainly did not seem to be any raging concern about the need for change then.
Senator Maheu: There are a lot more women now. Let us give it another try.
Senator Robertson: Of course. That is part of the work of the committee.
Senator Gauthier: I must remind you, Senator Maheu, that I, too spent several years in the house. I was Whip and House Leader. At most, only 40 per cent of the members are active in committees. If you count the number of active senators, you will see that we are neither better nor worse off than was the case in the House of Commons.
Senator Rompkey: I agree with that; I think it really is the case. I do not think anyone should be surprised, anymore than we should be surprised that only 52 per cent of the senators responded. That is not a bad average in terms of elections, nomination processes or whatever. Fifty per cent plus one is the general rule. I am not disappointed or surprised by that. Neither am I disappointed or surprised that a few people carry the load because that, too, is human nature and it applies across the board.
Frankly, I have to say that I have found a greater opportunity in the Senate to ask questions in depth, to range further afield, and to have more latitude in my questioning than I ever did in the House of Commons. Senator Gustafson concurs that that is the case with him as well.
In the short time that I have been in the Senate, I have come to the conclusion that the strength of the Senate is in its committees. If we want to prove to Canada and to Canadians that there is value in this institution, then we demonstrate it with our committees. I remember how in 1970, I believe, when the Davey report on Mass Media came out, the report was on a reading list at universities that year. Attention was paid to that report, and the authors listened to, and the whole process had credibility. There may be people here who served on that committee, I do not know. I was not even in politics then. However, through that committee report, the Senate provided a useful function to Canada and, indeed, to the academic world.
I think there is a real opportunity here for us to continue to make that kind of contribution, if we do our work properly. I do not think we should take up the time in this meeting here dwelling on negatives. I would like to hear around the table an expression of how people feel about the substance of this proposal. Personally, I support the paper. I think it has a lot of merit. I find little fault with it. I am sure it is not perfect. I certainly support it. I would like for us to use the opportunity given to us by this meeting to determine, around this table, what support there is for the proposal on the substance of the issue.
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, Senator Robertson has raised an important point as to why the Internal Economy Committee has become involved in something which is clearly within the purview of the Rules Committee. At first blush, I thought the same thing myself. It was explained to me that this was an exploratory measure, as Senator Gauthier has pointed out.
However, it also occurs to me that the Internal Economy Committee and the Rules Committee are very different committees because they are really administrative committees. Both of those committees, in other words, administrate the Senate. Sometimes it is difficult for them not to communicate with each other because, while they perform two different functions, they are both involved in doing exactly the same thing, which is administering the Senate. To me, it explains why we are having this meeting today. In any event, it resolves my concern. I had the same concern as did Senator Robertson.
With respect to the question of the survey and the whole business of committees, I would like to say that I attend the committees to which I am appointed. I have been a member of the Internal Economy Committee for many years. Also, like the others, I have served in the House of Commons, in my case for four Parliaments. When the survey came around, I do not think I responded to it because this business of how many committees there should be gets a bit blinding. I found the whole thing a little blinding because I was not thinking clearly about the matter. That is probably the case with other people as well.
However, when I do think about it, and because of the experience on one of my committees, I like the idea of having more committees. I agree with some of these proposals. I would be the last person to suggest that the Internal Economy Committee should be telling the Rules Committee what to do. It does not work that way; I know that. However, I think there is a lot to be said for the notion of having more, and smaller, committees.
I know that travel is a problem with which we must deal. I will not go on about it. This is a nonpartisan question because any solution must be agreed upon. It is not something that is a party issue.
I must say that, to my mind, there are issues with which the Senate is not dealing, questions which could be taken care of by this proposal. I am inclined to support it.
Senator Kirby: Mr. Chairman, just to pick up on Senator Rompkey's point, I support virtually all of the details as put forward. I might want to argue for some minor tinkering, but I strongly support the basic details of the proposal.
With respect to the value that Senate committees have, it seems to me that there are three basic principles that any change in committee structure needs to meet. The first principle is that we must put pressure on senators to either attend the meetings of a committee or remove themselves from its membership. Bluntly, in the case of the committee which I chair, it is prestigious within the business community to be able to tell people that you are on the Banking Committee. However, I have members who are on the Banking Committee in name only, in the sense that I do not see them from one year to the next, except for a token appearance from time to time. Frankly, I do not think such members ought to remain on the committee, and get the benefits attributed by the business community for being on the committee. The notion that you attend a significant number of meetings or you are kicked off is the right notion.
The second thing is that the publicity the Senate gets is 95 per cent from its committee work and about 5 per cent from the chamber. Clearly, the more committees exist, the more likely it is that we will get publicity for the chamber. Anyone attending a committee meeting will get one story. If we increase the number of committees, in my opinion we significantly increase the potential for better coverage of the Senate.
Third, the advantage of having a smaller number of people as regular members of a committee is that they become genuine experts in a field. Again, let me speak from my experience on the Banking Committee. Because a number of members have been on that committee for a long time means that we have become really the forum in Ottawa for discussion of business issues. It does not have to be just with regard to financial institutions. Generally, if you talk to the business community, you will hear that the place they feel that they can come to have a substantive, nonpartisan discussion of their policy issues is the Senate Banking Committee. It has nothing to do with the specific set of individuals who are sitting on that committee at any particular time. It has to do with the fact that, by and large, the people on the committee have been on it for a long time, and over that period of time they have developed a genuine degree of expertise in business public policy issues.
To that extent, moving in the direction of a smaller number of permanent members who could become almost experts in a policy field tremendously increases the value of our role in the public policy process.
Senator Cohen: As a member of the Internal Economy Committee, I questioned the propriety of our committee undertaking this project. It was explained to me that it was in the nature of another proposal.
Having said that, and having read them both, I think both offer a very fine solution to the situataion that we are facting, and may be just what we are looking for. The questionnaire gave us an overview of what 52 per cent of the senators are thinking. I responded to the questionnaire. This next document takes it a little further and makes it a little more concrete.
I have a problem with reducing the membership of committees from 12 to 7 since it was stated that just over half of the permanent membership attended any given meeting. I would have a problem with that. However, I am then intrigued with the whole idea of associate membership in committees. I feel that the associate member might take care of that discrepancy if the 12 were reduced to 7.
With the proposals that Senator Robertson was talking about, which she has received already, and with this proposal and the statistics that go back five or six years, we have a good starting plan.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not know of too many people around this room who have served on more committees than I have in the last 14 years. I must say that I am very impressed with this document. There are around 20 of us here, which is one-fifth of the Senate. I tend to agree with Senator Maheu. I hope the impression I am getting is incorrect, that there is a turf war going on here, because I do not want to have any part of that. I am not a member of either committee, Internal or Rules, but the work must be done here if this group can agree. It must be done here and then eventually changed, improved, and so on, and presented to the caucuses. It cannot go to the caucuses first. It would get nowhere.
In this paper that I have received, I see reflected here just about every frustration I have had in the last number of years, from independent senators, to attendance, to substitutions. I thought we might talk of certain matters which particularly interest us. I have a number of suggestions to make, but I am wondering now: Will we get down to it or not?
Senator Gauthier: The purpose of this meeting is not to study the document; the purpose is for us to receive the document as a proposal put to us by the Internal Economy Committee, to proceed with inviting other presentations or to have other documents to be tabled with us soon, and then go to the chair of every standing committee, ask them what their opinions are and how they would like to see this improved, and then proceed in committee simultaneously with a study of all the documents. There are several documents that we should be reading before we read this particular one that is before us in order to obtain the past history and experience of the house in terms of trying to restructure its committees.
As I said, this is just a conference between two committees which have a special administrative and financial impact on the Senate. For that matter, Senator Kenny and I together agreed to call this meeting, and possibly we could have other meetings later on if we get into a financial bind, for example, where we need more committee rooms or more facilities or more personnel. I notice we have pages working in committees now. That was an idea that was put to the Internal Economy Committee. I think it is a good idea, and there are others coming forward that could be used simultaneously.
Senator Robertson: It is interesting that Senator MacDonald and two or three of the senators here have identified things in the document as being very helpful to them, especially those concerns you identified in your committee, Senator Kirby. From listening to you over the years, Senator MacDonald, I know your frustrations.
In relation to the number of proposals that have been made to us over the years, you will find that those proposals were almost unanimously supported by our committee in attempting to achieve better attendance, a smaller committee structure, knowledgeable substitutes; that sort of thing. However, we have never received the support of the chamber or of the individual caucuses on that sort of initiative. Some of us feel very strongly about the plight of independent members. I, for one, feel that independent members should have the opportunity of being voting members on a committee. Other senators feel very strongly against such a move. I can understand that. Personally, I prefer a smaller committee. We spent a lot of time debating that issue and getting general support from our committee for that sort of structure.
I suppose that in the Rules Committee we will be gathering together all of the suggestions, and I would remind you that there is still a line-up of other suggestions, and of senators who wish to come before the committee to make presentations. After that, no doubt we will have the Senate leadership before the committee to express their positions as to where they want to see the committees going. We will also need to have the chairs in, as you have suggested, and the deputy chairs, so that we can achieve a balance from both sides of the chamber.
Honourable senators, there is a great deal of work to be done. I do hope that everyone sitting at this table will be interested in what is taking place, for Senator Gauthier's sake, because a number of us feel substantive changes need to be made. We all know that certain members in both caucuses say we should not let those recent members from the House of Commons turn the Senate into another House of Commons structure. You know that. You hear it. We all do. But you have biases, so it is to be hoped that, along the way, we will be able to come up with something. I think even making a decision to get on with this matter in committee, and to start studying these proposals and issues is important this morning.
Senator Poulin: I think that both Chairs should be congratulated on bringing together these two committees, because I am told by my neighbour, Senator Lewis, that this is the first time such a thing has happened in 20 years. Thank you. This is an opportunity to share governing principles. As Senator Carstairs was saying earlier, in the Internal Economy Committee, the whole matter was approached from the point of view of the governing principles of financial and logistical issues. What I was wondering is: When you look at the propositions that will come forward from the other committee -- not to say the other place -- what will be the governing principles? As my colleague Senator Robertson was saying, it will probably take 25 years to agree on every detail. However, we might have more facility in agreeing to governing principles. I am wondering what they are at this time in the committee.
Senator Gauthier: I will answer that question briefly. We intended to come back and meet with these two committees after we have had an opportunity to seriously study the documents, so that if there are any financial implications, the Board of Internal Economy will be aware of them, and we will be stronger with their support than if we did not have it. Over the past year, my reading of the situation has been that this move has been blocked somewhat by the house, but at other times by the other committee, due to lack of funds or preoccupation with spending money on such things. There are many things that need to be fine-tuned.
Senator Forrestall: Can we have a report before the next millennium? I would appreciate it if someone would answer Senator MacDonald's question so that I might make an intervention.
Senator Gauthier: I have told you, we do not intend to go into in detail the one document that we have here.
Senator Forrestall: Then the process is to refer all this to Senator Robertson's committee?
Senator Gauthier: I now chair that committee.
Senator Forrestall: Is that the proper procedure, as you see it then, senator?
Senator Gauthier: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Do you want to have a motion to that effect? Let us do it. I have more to do than discuss the niceties of such things.
Senator Kenny: I think there are some other people on the list.
Senator Forrestall: Can you ask them to report back before Christmas?
Senator Gauthier: Yes, we can.
Senator Forrestall: Is there some way we can move this off dead centre?
Senator Kenny: That is why we are having this meeting.
Senator Forrestall: You have been there, Senator Gauthier, and if you come to me in 10 years' time, as I am about to leave the Senate, and want me to tell you what has changed, I will not look to the committee structure to give you some indication of what changed around here in the last 15 or 20 years. However, I would like to see us move on this initiative.
Senator Gauthier: We will do our best.
Senator Forrestall: Where do the dollars and cents come into play? No matter how you slice it, this proposal involves a lot more money. We do not have any more money and we will not get any more for a couple of years. In the Senate we are being squeezed in many other areas that are a great deal more important to the good health of the process than is the committee structure. As important and as vital as it is, there are other things that are just as, if not more, important.
Senator Kenny: With the chairman's permission, I will respond to that. At first we felt that we could do it with little extra money. However, as committees become more active and travel more, that is where the big dollars kick in. Suddenly, our costs are over the $100,000 mark, and we are spending serious money.
My personal bias is that the more committees travel, the better it is for the Senate. We seem to get better coverage when we are on the road than when we sit in Ottawa. We seem to be ignored here. When we travel around the country, people hear us and we hear them. It is a good optic to have senators travelling across the country to listen to the people.
Senator Robertson: Yes, with the exception of employment insurance.
Senator Kenny: But if you were to focus on any partisan issue, no one would agree.
Senator Robertson: When something disturbs the status quo, you still must listen.
Senator Kenny: That is terrific, but if you want to become partisan about things, then we will come to a standstill. However, if we want to work as a team on things, we can get a great deal of work done.
Senator Robertson: That is agreed.
Senator Kenny: In terms of money, things are tight this year. It is an election year. If you think we should be able to find an great deal more money in the Estimates, I think it will be difficult to do. I lost this bet yesterday, so I will not repeat it today.
Senator MacDonald knows the answer to this question because I took a loonie from him the other day, but I bet most people do not know how much we spend on committees. I made the mistake of asking Senator Phillips, who knows the answer to almost everything. We spend 2 per cent of our budget on committees. That does not make a great deal of sense. It is something of which the members of the Internal Economy Committee are conscious and are trying to address in a serious way.
In terms of this year, I think we can get through the rest of this fiscal year with the plan that you see here, but it may not be adopted as it is. In terms of the next fiscal year, a smaller committee is less expensive to travel with. That is where we are hoping that some savings will evolve. Likewise, some of the costs, such as for the translators, do not go to our account; they are a cost to Her Majesty, but they are not a cost to our account. In terms of the reporters whom we have here, we do not see a way of having reporters at every meeting if we adopt this structure for committees. We see some committees converting to tape-recording, with subsequent transcription later on. It is not a perfect system. If committees begin to travel more, the costs will go up and we will have to find ways to solve the problems.
The Rules Committee and the Internal Economy Committee are both servants of the institution. Senator Gauthier and I are also your servants. If we receive direction to move in a certain way, then we will do our very best to do so.
Senator MacDonald: Was Senator Prud'homme aware that this meeting was taking place?
Senator Kenny: Yes, as were Senators Pitfield and Lawson.
Senator MacDonald: Returning to Senator Maheu's point, the independents are part of the problem, not the solution. Why would their opinion even be sought? I do not want to get too far off on this point, but after serving on every committee except the Library of Parliament and the committee on the Parliamentary Restaurant in the Senate, and having been the chairman of one committee for five years and deputy chairman of another, I am now, in my twilight years, in the happy position of currently not serving on any committee. I can drift from committee to committee like a little bee and participate in them, and so on. I have never seen Senator Prud'homme at any committee meeting to which he is entitled to go.
Senator Maheu: I have.
Senator MacDonald: He can get as much mischief --
Senator Kenny: Let me answer that.
Senator MacDonald: I wish he were here.
Senator Kenny: In fairness, I hold no brief for Senator Prud'homme, any more than does anyone one else. When Internal Economy was established, we wrote to the independent senators. We told them that they were not part of the caucus structure, and therefore it was probable that frequently they would not know what was going on. They were told that they would have access to our agendas and our minutes, and they were invited to attend any meeting that they chose. The rationale for that is simple: They are senators, and they are entitled to do so. Senator Prud'homme does not have a vote, but he often comes to our meetings. We hear what he has to say in great detail. He tells us what he thinks and we hear him, but he does not have a vote.
Senator Robertson: He comes to the Rules Committee all the time. He has a right.
Senator MacDonald: Of course he does. I am glad to see he is exercising it. I did not know that.
Senator Kenny: He does exercise that right in our committee.
Senator Gauthier: If there are no further questions, can we wrap up this meeting so that we can get back to our work?
I have not heard any negative comments yet at this gathering. I hope that you will all support us in this work, and I ask for your contributions. I sincerely hope that we will be able to come up with something by the end of November. If not, it will be before Christmas -- and I mean this Christmas, not next Christmas, Senator Forrestall. I am told that soon the house will have a break, whereby it does not sit for two weeks, so I am at a bit of a loss concerning how committed senators will be if I were to call a meeting during that time.
Senator Kenny, do you want to wrap up this meeting?
Senator Kenny: First, I should like to thank everyone for coming here and for their interest. I apologize to any senators who feel that the process was not exactly kosher. Having said that, it was done in an effort to be of assistance.
There is no question that we on the Internal Economy Committee feel that it is important to cooperate with the Rules Committee. Senator Gauthier has indicated to us that he feels it is important to cooperate with Internal Economy, and for us to work together in a nonpartisan manner.
I have a copy of the document here before me. Recognizing the fact that the Rules Committee does not need a reference in order to adopt something to study, I will leave it halfway between us and we will see whether or not the Rules Committee chooses to adopt this proposal as one of the things that they would like to study.
The committee adjourned.