Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on Post-Secondary Education
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 21, 1997
The Special Senate Committee on Post-Secondary Education met this day at 10:05 a.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Ms Jill Anne Joseph, Clerk of the committee: Honourable senators, we have a quorum.
Pursuant to rule 88, the Clerk of the committee presides over the election of the Chair. I am ready to receive a motion.
Senator Lewis: I would move:
That the Honourable Senator Bonnell be Chairman of this committee.
Ms Joseph: It is moved by Senator Lewis that Senator Bonnell be Chairman. Is it agreed, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms Joseph: Carried. Pursuant to rule 88, I invite Senator Bonnell to take the chair.
Senator M. Lorne Bonnell (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, honourable senators, for your confidence.
The first thing I must do in this job is to receive a motion for the election of a deputy chair. Senator Lavoie-Roux was the deputy chair last time and she did a good job. We had the French language and the English language in the Chair. She represented the Conservative Party while I represented the Liberal Party.
Senator Lewis: After hearing your recommendation, I would like to move:
That the Honourable Senator Lavoie-Roux be Deputy Chairman of this committee.
Senator Andreychuk: We have not yet had any discussions on our side. I propose that we put Senator Lavoie-Roux in and then we will have a discussion with her. She is going to be on another committee.
Senator Cools: Yes, she is on a few committees.
Senator Andreychuk: The only question is what she wants.
Senator Cools: If she does not want it, then we can rethink the situation.
The Chairman: We can always change it later if need be.
Senator Andreychuk: She is our choice, but let us see whether she is willing to accept that.
The Chairman: Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The third item on the agenda is regarding the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Senator Lewis: I would move:
That the subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chair, the Deputy Chair and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation;
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and
That the subcommittee report its decisions to the committee.
I would also propose:
That the "one other member" be Senator Losier-Cool.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. The next motion refers to the printing of the committee's proceedings. The usual motion is for 500 copies.
Senator Andreychuk: Before we move on to that, since there has been virtually no discussion it -- the committee lapsed by virtue of the proroguing of Parliament and we are reconvening now -- I would like to know where we are going from here before we determine how many copies to print.
The Chairman: Basically what we will do now is write a report and we will seek some expert advice on what should be in that report.
Senator Andreychuk: There are a couple of issues that I believe should be examined by either the steering committee or the committee as a whole. I have discussed these issues with the two other members on this side. We feel we need an update on actions taken by the government vis-à-vis post-secondary education since we last heard evidence.
The Chairman: Yes, we do.
Senator Andreychuk: That would not be done to delay the report, but we should hear what has been done. We are going on a certain set of experiences, interviews and witnesses' evidence, and we now need an update of what has been done by the government. I do not know who we call to get that.
The Chairman: We should call on the Department of Human Resources Development to bring witnesses here. I also suggest that we write to all the witnesses whom we have heard before and who gave us their reports and ask, under the new circumstances, whether they have anything new that they might want to send in.
Senator Andreychuk: That opens up a whole new can of worms. If we write to all witnesses to get updates, they will all feel compelled to update. I would hope that we could put in our report that we based our information on what was given to us at that time, and we understand that some situations may have changed but that, because of expediency and time pressures, we must move on.
I would hope you would not reopen the issue. There were some people who wanted to come before the committee who did not get here. We will not finish according to our time limits. I would suggest that we only add information about any actions taken by the government which may affect the evidence. For example, there is a new scholarship fund. Those are the things that we need to add to what we have heard from the witnesses.
My second suggestion is that we have the time to sit down and determine what we want in the report. I would want an opportunity, as would the two other members on my side, to determine what should be in the report in addition to what you have already proposed.
My final point regards the writing. This is my own opinion, not having had a full discussion with the other two Conservative members. We need a report which can withstand a critical analysis done by government officials. I think we can do that within our existing component. My overwhelming concern is that this report can be accepted legitimately within the academic community, within the education communities and with provincial authorities, that is, both at the political and bureaucratic levels.
It seems to me that we can continue with our researchers and our clerk and all who are now in place and responsible for writing the report. However, we will need another writer to help with the style and mode of writing. I would propose that someone from the academic community should join the "team," if I may call it that.
The Chairman: Those are all good ideas, but I am trying first to get all this routine, organizational stuff done which must be done for all committees. Then I can give you a short report on what I think we should do after we get organized.
Senator Andreychuk: Until we have an idea of the kind of report we will write, how can we determine how many copies to produce? Can we not leave that to be determined later?
Senator Lewis: I notice that the resolution on the agenda is that the Chair would be authorized to adjust the number to meet demand. I take it then that the committee can decide at a later time to adjust the number.
The Chairman: We use the 500 number knowing that universities and colleges and the provinces will want copies. It is a reasonable number which can be adjusted.
Senator Andreychuk: My concern is that this issue should be discussed somewhere by the committee, as it normally is when reports are printed. For the time being, if we absolutely must, we can go with this.
The Chairman: Apparently, we print 225 copies of the proceedings which go out every week to the members of Parliament and the libraries. When we make the full report, we can discuss the requirement then.
Senator Lewis: I move:
That the committee print 500 copies of its proceedings and that the Chair be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We also need a motion:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.
Senator Losier-Cool: I so move.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We need a motion:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure ask the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to the committee;
That the Chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We then need a motion:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chair or in the Chair's absence, the Deputy Chair; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the Chair, the Deputy Chair, and the Clerk of the committee.
Senator Losier-Cool: I so move.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We need a motion:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses' expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.
Senator Losier-Cool: So moved.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. The next item is time slot for regular meetings. It has been suggested that we meet on Wednesday afternoons after the Senate rises and Tuesday morning at ten o'clock, provided that the Social Affairs Committee is not meeting at that time. I do not believe they will be meeting very often between now and the new year.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a problem with the timing on Wednesday, when the Senate rises.
The Chairman: Can we meet every Tuesday morning?
Senator Andreychuk: I will not know until this afternoon when I speak to Senator Stewart.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have a problem with the Wednesday time slot, also.
The Chairman: We could have a later meeting, perhaps at 5:30, or a supper meeting. Perhaps we will leave it that the meetings may be held on Wednesday or on Tuesday or Thursday mornings at the call of the Chair and as space is available and as senators are available. In that way, we can adjust the timing to everybody's schedule.
Senator Andreychuk: By the end of this week, we will know our other committees and when they are sitting.
The Chairman: That is fine. There is no motion required.
The organizational part of the meeting today is completed. Regarding the future role of the committee, it is suggested that letters be written to former witnesses to request information or updates of their written submissions, as a possibility. These would not be new submissions, and we would not ask them to give us anything, but we would ask whether they have anything that they specifically want to bring to our attention. Should we do that or not?
Senator Andreychuk: First of all, do we have a time-frame to report by the end of the year?
The Chairman: I want it out by December 12.
Senator Andreychuk: Then we cannot reasonably expect to send letters to people and ask for updates in the next week. It is impossible, particularly at this time. This is why I say it may be a shortcoming in our report not to have updates from everyone, but, on the other hand, we can point out that shortcoming in our own report and say that we are going on the evidence taken in the spring. People then will know that time passes and things change; that we did not do it purposely but that we did it for reasons of time and efficiency.
I would propose that we only update the actions being taken by the federal government. After all, we are dealing with the federal government. There may have been actions by others, by universities and CEGEPs and by provincial governments. However, we want to know where the federal government is going. I have picked up a bit of what they have done but I want to be sure that we are not recommending something without having full knowledge.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have the same feeling. At the same time, we cannot neglect what the witnesses have told us. We must put it down somewhere, according to what they have said, but to have an update from every group would be like starting all over again.
The Chairman: We only have three weeks before Armistice week when we are off. Then there is time for four or five in camera meetings before we put out the final report. That is not much time. We will try to have a meeting by next week with everyone present to discuss recommendations for the outline and how we should handle the total outline. Then we should hear from the department. They can tell us what they have in mind and what changes have been made to the student loans and the millennium grants and so forth.
Senator Andreychuk: We could go ahead and set up that witness today for early next week.
The Chairman: That is right.
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes. It is important that we have time to look at the draft of the report. We cannot see the draft report and then present it in the chamber two days later. We need time.
Senator Andreychuk: We also need time for translation and printing.
The Chairman: Next week, we will try to have someone here from the Department of Human Resources Development. We will try to get a meeting, perhaps this week, to discuss plans for formatting the report.
Senator Andreychuk: Could I suggest that the steering committee meet first? If we function well at the steering committee, then we do not need as many people and we can avoid some conflicts. I would hope that the steering committee could sort out how we proceed from here, what goes into the report, the writing, et cetera. That information can then be reported to the full committee at the same time that we hear the Human Resources witness, and we can get concurrence.
I will undertake to ensure that Senator Lavoie-Roux is there or at least to discuss things with her and come as her agent.
The Chairman: I would suggest that you attend the steering committee meeting because you always have good ideas. No one can slow down Senator Lavoie-Roux better than you can when she gets tired of waiting.
Senator Andreychuk: That is not true. She is very busy. I do not want to slow her down at all. I want her to continue on all the committees on which she sits and I will help her. I will discuss this with her.
The Chairman: If there are no further comments, the committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.