Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing
Rules and Orders
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 9, 1999
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 3:55 p.m. to consider the restructuring of Senate committees.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, you have before you the proposed agenda. May I have a motion to approve the agenda?
Senator Beaudoin: I so move.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Beaudoin, seconded by Senator Joyal, that the agenda be approved. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Last week we discussed having Senator Andreychuk represent those interested in establishing a human rights committee. That is the first item on our agenda.
Do you have a presentation you wish to make at this time, Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: Madam Chairman, I was not sure what your practices and procedures were in this committee, so I was not sure what you wanted from me. I could certainly give you a text, if that is what you want, or an impassioned plea.
The idea of having a Senate human rights committee is not my idea. It has been around the Senate for many years. Unfortunately, when I spoke to this matter in the chamber it was late on a Thursday night, when everyone's patience was exhausted, so I did not say many words then. What I wanted to say is that I think the Senate has spoken about human rights for so long that it is now time to do something about it.
If we talk about defending national interests, minority interests and regional interests, human rights has to be the approach and the method we use. If we care about the institutions and the values that we talk about in Canada, we would be remiss in not having a human rights committee, because it would give a focus to our work that I think is very important.
Previous similar motions have been before the Senate, and they were all looked at favourably, but nothing happened. They were all good ideas but they got lost in the procedures. When I became a senator, I joined the call for a human rights committee. Senator Oliver, Senator Haidasz and others put forward proposals, and did so more eloquently than can I, but I simply thought that, if we had even one committee in the Senate, it should be a human rights committee; all our other work would flow from that and could be in the subcommittee category. Now we have a golden opportunity here, because I think there is a lot of goodwill in the country to look at this issue.
A human rights committee in the Senate would not be the conscience of Parliament, nor would it be involved in the day-to-day issues on human rights subjects. In other words, I do not think we can monitor Parliament by looking at human rights abuses, because various institutions and committees throughout Canada and internationally have that as their mandate. Rather, I think a human rights committee should focus its attention on monitoring Canadian institutions, such as the Human Rights Commission. Various reports have suggested that that commission is outdated and needs to be investigated to see whether it can be made more efficient and more current with today's needs. I think that would be a natural study for Canada.
As well, there seems to be no parliamentary scrutiny, on a continuous basis, of the international instruments Canada signs. We often end up criticizing the government for not having done what it should in its reports and its mandate. If the Senate were to take on this task, it would be in the position of giving advice and scrutinizing the work from a parliamentary basis, which would assist the government in its human rights agenda, both at home and around the world.
Honourable senators, I see us tackling the monitoring of all of these devices and institutions and looking into some fundamental questions. I have used the example over and over again that we would not have had to set up a special committee on euthanasia, for example, because that would have been a natural subject for a human rights committee.
There are fundamental issues in Canadian society that need to be looked at in a more academic and thoughtful way so that Canadians can get a body of work to reflect on these rights that we hold so dear. We used to discuss and debate these issues, and I think Parliament used to discuss them more often. A committee would focus parliamentary activity in that way.
I do not want to say any more than that. I am sure every senator at this table could give hundreds of good reasons for establishing this committee. My simple thought is that if we truly believe in human rights values and wish to adhere to the international declaration, then we should put the human rights committee first.
As a secondary point, I know that you have other items on your agenda about the number of Senate committees, the size of Senate committees and the structure of Senate committees, and I do not want to get trapped into that debate, because I think that should be an overall discussion. I would simply say that, if there is to be one committee in the Senate, it should be the human rights committee, and it should have priority. It should not be a secondary committee or a subcommittee, because of its importance and the signal we want to give Canadian people about the interest in this topic.
Unfortunately, time-frames were rather short when we reconvened, and, Madam Chairman, you were very kind and moved this matter along quickly. A number of senators said they would talk about it. They wondered what the committee wanted. I did not know what committee members wanted of me. Do they want a treatise on human rights? Do they want me to defend this proposal vis-à-vis other committees? I am not sure about the position.
If the committee wishes to adjourn debate on this matter because it needs more information, please do so. I did not want to burden myself nor committee members with needless paper.
A number of senators here said they are very interested. Senator Wilson has been very key in pushing for a human rights committee. A number of others are either in other committees or away today for some legitimate reason. However, I have found support from both sides of the Senate chamber. I do not think it is an issue that divides us. Rather, it is an issue that brings us together and is one that could be an exciting venture for the Senate.
Senator Grafstein: The idea commends itself, but I do have a series of questions. Maybe we do need a little more documentation. I know that the other side has such a committee, and I understand that they have been doing some work. I have not followed their work, but we would have to take a careful look at what they have done so as not to duplicate that work.
The first question, then, is what is the House of Commons doing? What has been the record on this issue? What has been the impact? I know they have done some work, but I have not followed it carefully.
Second, we must look at the bifurcation between international human rights and domestic human rights. I say that because, if I look at our Senate committee groupings, A, B and C, every grouping has a human rights component. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee deals with human rights and civil rights practically all the time. I have not attended the Social Affairs, Science and Technology committee, but I know that, when it comes to social affairs, social issues touch on human rights. When we look at the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, the new 1990s notion of human rights is now environmental human rights. Does that conflict with our desire to strike a new committee? Then, of course, the Aboriginal Peoples committee is totally committed to a form of human rights as it applies to that group. Most recently, the Foreign Affairs committee completed a study that dealt, in part, with human rights in Asia.
I believe that we should analyze your proposal through two prisms: First, what, if anything, can we add to the domestic front, if we should join the two together? The second would be the international front. I think we need more clarification as to what has been done, before I can come to a conclusion, although the general notion commends itself to me.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: I do not want to be the devil's advocate. Everyone is in favour of virtue and against vice, although vice can be pleasant from time to time. Nevertheless, when we do follow-up day after day, when we provide advice, when we examine and monitor issues, we are, despite ourselves, taking on the role of the government's conscience, even though this is not what we may want.
I would like to go back to what my colleague said. We must not short-circuit certain committees that also keep tabs on their issues and wind up duplicating their efforts. For example, we want to avoid duplication between the human rights committee and other committees. We do not have any time to waste given the number of committees that we have.
This concerns me somewhat. How can you have a human rights committee without following the legislation created by the Human Rights Commission to ascertain whether or not officials are abiding by the legislation governing them? At that point, we become the conscience of the government. Is that what we really want to be? I do not know. This is bothering me a bit.
If we do not want to be the conscience of the government, how can we achieve this while providing advice at the same time? The two things go hand in hand. If you want to provide advice, you have to have done a very close follow-up. In my opinion, this is neither the main goal nor what you want to do.
If we make a distinction between Canadian and international issues, that's something else. Once again, I fear that we will be short-circuiting what other committees are doing and we will wind up with duplication. We do not have time to do that.
[English]
Senator Kenny: Madam Chairman, I support the concept of a human rights committee. I am not concerned about duplicating the work of other committees. Part of the analysis you must go through is that some committees need their load lightened. If you look at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, it has far more work than it is reasonable for any committee to do. When you analyze the number of hours and bills they must deal with, one of the objectives of this committee should be a rebalancing of that effort.
I have done that. I have provided the committee with documentation that demonstrates that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee is 50 per cent busier than the next busiest committee in the Senate. They have an impossible workload, and it makes a significant amount of sense for some of that work to move to a human rights committee.
The second point I will draw to the attention of senators is that the key thing to making a committee work is having a group of people who really wish to work on something. It is not accurate to say that we have a significant amount of overlap. Committees do not produce the same work on the same subject and it is not terribly difficult for chairpersons to say, "We are focusing on area X, and perhaps another committee can focus on area Y."
I must say that what makes committees function is a core or nucleus of people who say that a topic is important and they are prepared to invest a certain number of hours over the next year on that committee. Whenever you see that, you see a well-functioning committee that is doing something useful and productive. Whenever you see the chair of a committee, as we have seen from time to time in the past while, complaining that the committee is not getting any turnout, it is because they are not working on anything that is of interest to the senators. The fact that I see so many people who have come out and who wish to make this particular committee go is a real endorsement.
I would add that while it does not directly relate to the question of restructuring, in item one, one of the proposals we will get to later on is the size of committees. A relatively small number of people can make this committee function. If there are six senators who wish to make this thing go, I say more power to them. Whenever you see a group of people who have the bit between their teeth, we should say, "Go for it; that is what you are here for. If you can lighten the load of some of the other committees, terrific."
I would not spend two minutes looking at the House of Commons. They do their thing and it does not relate to me one iota. They simply slow us down.
With respect to duplicating the work of other committees, if it lightens the load of other committees, that is terrific.
I am happy to vote in favour of this and we should move ahead with it expeditiously.
Senator Wilson: When I received the call from the PMO's office asking me to consider my name being put into a pool of possible senators from Ontario, I said that, because I was so highly motivated on human rights issues, I did not know if I had time for the Senate. The response was a suggestion that I take that agenda and further my concerns through the Senate. I share that with you, because that is my major motivation. I appreciate what Senator Kenny has said. Therefore, I hope we get a committee for human rights.
While it is true that all committees have human rights components, my thought for a human rights committee is that it would make human rights its primary focus. I have been working on human rights already and I intend to continue, whether there is a committee or not, through the parliamentary scrutiny of international instruments. That includes the two large covenants, one on civil and political rights, and the other on economic, social and cultural rights, which Canada has signed, and which join both the domestic and international concerns.
The Senate has the great privilege of having time to reflect, having time to study, having time to look at the nuances. That would be a very good contribution to the Canadian public as well as to the government.
Whether or not we proceed will be a signal to the public, because a number of people will be watching what we are doing. I did spend some time with the House of Commons human rights committee to find out what they are doing, and I feel there will not be duplication there; however, we would need to keep tabs on that. At the present time there would be no duplication. I am highly motivated to work on this, and it should be an independent standing committee, because there are enough senators interested in putting in the time and energy. I hope that the committee is established.
Senator Di Nino: Madam Chairman, I do not think I can outdo the eloquence of the other senators here; I would simply suggest that I am strongly supportive of Senator Andreychuk's motion to create a human rights committee. However, I have a couple of comments on duplication.
There will always be duplication between committees on certain subjects. You will not avoid that. As a matter of fact, sometimes it is pretty healthy. In the Foreign Affairs Committee the other day I noted to myself how we might be looking at some of the world banking issues that the banking committee looks at. I am not sure that it is not a good idea, sometimes, for two committees to look at one issue, if it is important enough.
One of the points I wish to make has been made already by Senator Wilson. Although we should not create a committee merely for symbolism, I do feel that there is a strong message that we would be sending out to Canadians, particularly those who are interested in this issue and in these values, that we deal with more than just the nuts and bolts of running a country. That would be a very good message that would perhaps set us apart from the House of Commons.
I am in strong support, as is my colleague, Senator Oliver. Already you have around this room, I believe, five or six people who would form a very strong nucleus of that committee.
[Translation]
Senator De Bané: I too would like to support Senator Andreychuk's suggestion that we set up a parliamentary committee on human rights.
Indeed, I think that this is the most important issue, because, when you get right down to it, there are two main visions of society. We either place the human being at the top of the pyramid, and we say that the purpose of every country, of every State is to enable each individual to obtain his or her full potential, or we adopt the other viewpoint whereby every individual is there for the benefit of society in general.
Obviously, I think that we all share the first vision whereby the human being is at the top of the pyramid and fundamental human rights cannot be dissociated from human dignity.
Without our realizing it, we are seeing the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms slowly becoming the hyphen that joins all Canadians.
When I see that, in my own province for example, groups that are as anti-federalist as the central labour bodies now use this Charter of Rights in their own demands -- and this is occurring in all Canadian provinces -- I can foresee that, in a few years' time, we will realize that these values are what bind us all together. That is why I would like to support Senator Andreychuk's motion to establish this committee.
[English]
Senator Beaudoin: It is not a question of whether we are in love with human rights. We all are, and I am one of the first to feel that way. The question is one of structure. Obviously, in the legal committee, for example, we do three things: we check every bill in order to determine if it is compatible with the Charter of Rights; we check for compatibility with the division of powers; and the rest is criminal law.
You may do what you want. You may have another committee entitled "human rights"; however, half of the legal committee's work is already involved with human rights matters.
The only aspect that is not treated adequately, perhaps, is international human rights. If that is what we mean by a committee on human rights, perhaps that is quite logical. Therefore, the question is not where you put human rights. It is the most important subject and it is already dealt with to a great extent in one of the committees that currently exist. Therefore, perhaps the question is not whether we should have a committee, but where we should put the study of human rights in this country.
I agree with Senator De Bané. It is at the top. Most of the experts who appear before the Legal committee are talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you create a special committee for human rights, I will certainly prefer to sit on that committee, because I am more interested in human rights than in anything else in the world.
However, whether we should do so is a problem of structure. If the first question were, "How many committees should we have?," I would understand the debate. If you say we should have eight or ten committees, obviously we would have to put human rights somewhere. If we had 14 committees or an unlimited number of committees, I do not know how the opposition would cope with that because of the number of senators, but that is another problem.
The first question is one of structure and the number of committees. The question is certainly not whether human rights should be studied in this country, because that subject is number one. Whether it is external or internal, it is number one, because we are a democracy.
That is all I will say at this moment. I am not ready to vote on this, because I do not believe that the debate has been started in the right way.
Senator DeWare: Senator Andreychuk was right when she first started talking about this committee. She said that she did not want it to interfere with the other items on the agenda, that she simply wanted to deal with whether we should have a human rights committee. I think we all agree that we should have a human rights committee, and we could vote on that. Then we can decide whether it should stand alone or be a subcommittee.
We have spoken at this table about changing the structure of subcommittees. Currently you must be a member of the parent committee to be on a subcommittee. It is up to this committee to change that and allow any member of the Senate to be a member of a subcommittee, including members of the parent committee. The current rule has often made it difficult, for instance, for the Veterans Affairs Committee to fill its complement.
We can vote on whether we want to have a human rights committee. If we decide to have one, we must then decide whether it should stand alone or be a subcommittee. I would not agree that it be a subcommittee until we change the rule to allow any senator to be a member without being a member of the parent committee.
Senator Andreychuk: I wish to respond to a few of the comments that have been made.
Senator Grafstein was interested in what the House of Commons is doing. The House of Commons has a subcommittee of its Foreign Affairs Committee. It has had its start-up problems, to be candid. They have tended to deal with current issues that have a human rights implication that grow out of what the Foreign Affairs Committee is doing. It may be the issue of Kosovo or something like that.
I do not see that it would be in competition. It could be a complement to our work, but I do not think we would duplicate it. The House of Commons is party oriented, but I do not think that that would be the structure here.
I do not think this is a duplication of any other committees. This sounds very much like the debates I remember from the United Nations. Where does human rights come in and where does the environment come in? You can say that there is an aspect of human rights in all of our work. That should not be a reason not to have a committee focused on human rights.
Using Legal and Constitutional Affairs as an example, in my six years in the Senate that committee has never done an independent study. It scrutinizes legislation and within that mandate it looks at the Charter of Rights, the division of powers, et cetera. That is very valuable work and should continue.
That is why I do not think it would be in competition with a human rights committee that would look at the issues of human rights. Obviously, we would be guided by what is possible, by the interests of the members, and by the amount of money available. All of those things would determine the amount of work we could handle.
By setting up a human rights committee, we would not be saying that we have the exclusive right to look into these issues, but only that we have the ability to study the issues in a unique way. I do not think it is a duplication. I think it is a support system to the fundamental work of the other committees.
Therefore, I do not agree with Senator Beaudoin. It is my hope that it would add to the work of the Legal Committee. I am not sure that it would reduce their workload.
If we are structured correctly and have the right terms of reference, I do not think that we would be in any way the conscience of government or Parliament. Rather, as we do in the Banking Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we would give the government advice that would be of assistance to it. I do not see that this would in any way detract from the role of the government or the parliamentary functions in the house. I see it being a support system.
One of the reasons I think a human rights committee is absolutely necessary is to stop this division between national issues of human rights and international issues of human rights. Canada adheres to the international covenants. That is where we take our strength and the core of our beliefs in human rights. Every national human rights issue has an international dimension, and vice versa. The inability of the parliamentary system to shed light on that issue is one of the things it is lacking.
In the joint committee on foreign policy, in which I and others around this table participated, that was part of the dilemma. We would serve a useful purpose if we pointed out that what we want for ourselves has an impact on the rest of the world. What we keep for ourselves has an impact as well. A life is a life; dignity is dignity. It is a universal value and issue. Sometimes there are differences between what we say internationally and what we have entrenched nationally. A committee focused on human rights would be able to focus on some of those disparities and shed some light.
Therefore, I do not envisage a human rights committee as a subcommittee of any of the existing committees. I envisage the human rights committee as the parent committee with some other areas being dealt with by subcommittees of it.
I have not thought about the membership of the committee. My concern is its focus. Regardless of what committees are collapsed or combined, my concern is that the perspective of human rights is there. I do not think it is a question of creating an add-on.
As Senator DeWare has said, I hope we look at a human rights committee from the perspective of the value of it and the need for it. After that point, if you are going to rationalize committees, I would hope that I and those who are interested in a human rights committee can have our say as to how committees should be collapsed into subcommittees or should simply cease to exist. Then only the committees that currently exist should justify their existence.
Some of them could easily be subcommittees. Some could be combined.
On the matter of duplication, some or our present committees duplicate House of Commons committee work more than this committee would. However, I think that is a second phase and a second step.
I do not know if I have answered all of the questions, but I have attempted to do so.
The Chirman: If there are no other interventions, I would thank you for your proposal. It is one, among others, that the this committee will consider when we are looking at restructuring. From what the members around this table have said, your proposal will certainly be one that we will spend enough time on to warrant your interest and your presentation.
Senator Andreychuk: A number of senators on both sides are very interested in this, but some of them may not have been able to attend today. Many of those senators would have been more eloquent in defending the subject. I just happened to have mentioned it this time, and you were kind enough to hear me, but there are many others as well; so I do not look at it as my proposal; I look at it as a Senate proposal.
The Chairman:I think you spoke very eloquently for all of them.
The second item on our agenda is the proposal to establish a defence and security committee.
Senator Kenny, would you like to speak on that one?
Senator Kenny: I would be happy to, Madam Chairman. May I be allowed a moment to provide a bit of context?
As I have listened to the discussion on human rights, it is clouded to some extent by other issues that relate to, for example, the opposition's ability to have people at committees. It is difficult for people to address that unless they have some comfort about the size of the committees.
If you look at the proposal, one says "Senator Kenny's Proposal," and the other says "Liberal Proposal," which makes me wonder if I am a Liberal or not. I guess it depends on the day or the hour.
I would say that a key element in both of those proposals is the suggestion that having 15-person committees and 12-person committees is passé. It does not make any sense to force 12 senators to sit on a committee if there are only eight senators who are interested in what that committee is doing. Our two management committees, Internal Economy and Rules, are at 15, which is a very unwieldy size for any committee.
The proposal that you see here under the Liberal Proposal suggests committees as small as six but no larger than 12, and it takes into account the fact that there is likely to be a further change in the membership of the Senate that will make it more difficult for the opposition party to man committees. We have seen that in the past. We had a situation back in the 1970s; the leadership in the Senate went to the then Prime Minister and said, "Please appoint some Conservatives to the Senate, because the committees, owing to a lack of numbers, are not functioning." That is one alternative, and perhaps it is an appealing one to Conservative members.
The other alternative is to have some smaller committees, and that is what is on the table here under two of the proposals. It would let senators who are interested in those committees work on them. Smaller committees have a whole range of advantages. Every one gets a chance to participate and ask questions of witnesses. If you are on a 12- or 15-person committee, you may well miss an opportunity to talk to a witness just because you run out of time. Moreover, on both sides, the whips have problems seeing that those committees are properly covered off.
The proposal for a human rights committee and the proposal for a defence and security committee were certainly discussed in our caucus, and that resulted in the Liberal proposals. They came out of two lengthy caucus meetings that we had and were contingent on the fact that we would have smaller committees. The maximum size would be 12, and, in fact, many committees would be smaller.
There was also a good argument made that committees are only as good as their chairs. If you have a chair who is engaged and involved and functioning, then the committee pulls together and has a good focus. There are but few senators who, in the course of their time in the Senate, would not want the chance to chair a committee. Those who miss that opportunity find that it is a real loss not to have had that experience at some point in their career. There would also seem to be a value in having more senators enjoying that experience, because it gives them a broader perspective, and that is useful.
Speaking specifically to defence now, the intent was, first, to provide a focus on defence and then to combine it with security. Right now, defence comes under the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs has habitually devoted a small amount of its time to defence issues. Historically, it has had other broader issues to be concerned about. Those senators who have been interested in defence have gone on to establish special committees in the past. For five or six years in a row Senator Lafond established, year after year, a special committee to deal with defence, and that committee reflected great credit on the Senate. It produced a series of reports that were most effective.
There are senators here today who sat on the joint committee that dealt with defence matters and, specifically, the future of the Canadian Armed Forces. I believe those senators came away from that joint committee with the strong feeling that we were not examining the question thoroughly or well. That committee had as one of its recommendations that there be created a standing joint committee on national defence. Several of us have come to the conclusion since that a standing joint committee would be a real inhibitor. If you look at the structure of House of Commons committees, you see they have a turnover once every two years. They have the Parliamentary Secretary sitting there as sort of the watchdog for the minister, keeping a close eye on things. Frankly, the feeling was that a Senate committee would have a lot more latitude and freedom to actually get into defence issues.
Those defence issues are obvious to anyone. We have seen the defence budget go from $11 billion to $9 billion over the past four years, notwithstanding the commitments that were made in both the committee's report and in the government's white paper that came out after that. We have situations where junior ranks are lining up at food banks to be fed. We have situations in which helicopters are older than the pilots flying them and the likelihood of their continuing to function safely is doubtful; it is a very high-risk operation. We have a situation in which the morale of the Armed Forces is in a state of crisis.
Not every senator is interested in this, and in fact a majority are probably not. However, there is a nucleus of senators who are interested in it.
As far as the security side goes, it is a natural fit. Many of the senators who have an interest in defence have the same sort of interest in CSIS and the RCMP, and would probably be willing to include "prisons" in their mandate, just to lighten the load of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Of course, that raises the question of re-balancing the workload of committees. When you consider the number of hours committees must sit and the number of pieces of legislation that, for example, Legal Affairs has to deal with, it makes sense to hive some of that off into a second committee. A defence committee would marginally lighten the load of Foreign Affairs, but it would be very helpful to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The gun control legislation, for example, would probably have ended up before the defence committee instead of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and there are a significant number of senators who want to address this issue on an ongoing basis. That is another reason why this proposal is now before this committee.
Senator Robertson: Before we talk about defence and security and human rights as add-ons, there is no doubt that it would be difficult to find people in the Liberal caucus or in the opposition caucus who do not agree that these topics have to be addressed or should be addressed. As has already been discussed, some may feel that they are partially addressed now. Before we can talk about how we structure these things, we have to look at the entire structure of the committees branch.
Our caucus had a run at this issue this morning. If there are 14 committees, and there is a minimum of two opposition senators on each committee, that takes up 28 senators. You must take three out for leadership. Our caucus is no different from yours; there are some who do not like to work on committees.
Senator Cools: And there are some who do not like to work.
Senator Robertson: We have our share.
Senator Cools: For the record, that was a joke.
Senator Robertson: I am not criticizing when I point this out to you.
Supposing you have seven or eight and we have seven or eight who do not want to work on committees, then we are up to 38 or 39. Then, we have some senators, as you do, who want to concentrate on one committee.
What I am saying, as earnestly as I can, I am saying for a number of reasons. If we are talking about the numbers today, in four years' time we will be seven less in our caucus. Some of our people think that you want this large number of committees so that the committees will just rubber-stamp the government's legislation. I do not think we really want to do that, but that is what it would look like if we did not have senators on some of these committees.
Some of our senators feel that it would politicize the process more, because we would not be able to make our contribution in the way we feel we should make it. I point this out to you because it is the main body of our concern.
Tied into this of course -- and Senator Prud'homme will appreciate this -- is that the senators in our caucus certainly feel that independent senators should be full members of all committees. We have no reservation with the government having one extra member. However, it is this other issue of where our membership will be that raises concerns. That is why our caucus really likes a smaller number of committees with strong subcommittees. I think we should work on a structure like that to make it manageable for both sides of the chamber.
You people over there may not think of it now, but you know how hard it is to change the rules. We have been working on this change in committees now for more years than I care to remember. When I first came to the Senate in 1984, you could put our caucus into a bird's nest. I was asked to work on five or six committees. You know and I know that you just run around like a silly person if you do that. You cannot be knowledgeable. You cannot make an honest or reasonable contribution in those circumstances, and I can see that happening again. For instance, this government is apt to hang in for another five or six years. I will concede that now with my political hat on.
At any rate, I would like us to deal with the structure and then we can deal with all these other issues. I think this is what Senator Beaudoin was saying.
The Chairman: Did your caucus consider the possibility of having a minimum of six members on a committee to offset the problem of the numbers that we will be facing within the next four years, as you said?
Senator Robertson: Right now, we would have great difficulty putting more than three or four members on a committee and getting them to attend. Our numbers are getting a little shaky. Even if we took the minimum of two, the difficulties I have described to you are the same. You can see our problem. I am trying to be practical. I do not want to be political, but I do not think you people would want the committee structure to look as if it is being politicized.
The Chairman: Even with two out of six today you foresee a problem in the next four years, for example.
Senator DeWare: I think we have to look seriously at the "eight and ten" structure.
Senator Beaudoin: I doubt that we are going in the right direction. This is exactly what the debate is all about. We have to be practical, as Senator Robertson said. The fact is that the opposition has a certain number of senators and the party in power has more, and will have even more in the future. It is a fact with which we have to deal. If there are 30 senators on one side and 70 to 74 on the other side, obviously, the committee make-up will be two-thirds and one-third.
I speak of the committees which I know well, such as the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It works well in that committee. There is no problem. There may be two or three people on one side and five or six on the other. If people are good in their field, then there is no problem. It is democratic. That is the way I see it. Of course, that necessitates having fewer than 14 committees. I cannot see how the opposition can accept having 14 committees. They will have in one committee one vice-chair and that is all. It will not work.
We are bound by the fact that it may be eight or ten, and that is debatable; but I cannot see how it can be 14. In my opinion, looking at what the situation will be in two or three years, that will never work. When we solve that problem, it is very easy in my opinion to say that, if we have eight committees or ten committees, then "these" are the committees that should be there, because they are essential. Obviously, "these" includes the Finance Committee, the Legal Affairs committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. There can be no debate on that point.
In my opinion, the question of the filling of each domain is secondary. The importance is the main structure: How many committees should there be?
Senator Grafstein: I would like to say just a word on the points raised by Senators Robertson and Beaudoin. There is no question that we have to have a structure that involves an active and useful role for the opposition. Without that, there is no workable committee. None of us wants to be part of a one-party system. We really want a balance. In the circumstances and given the structures we have, the question is how to strike the proper balance.
I will make one comment about this and then I want to deal with the second proposal, which is where I thought we were, Madam Chairman.
I think we should end up considering two types of committees. We have to have at the heart of the committee system larger committees to deal with the substantive issues; and then we can have smaller committees to deal with less substantive matters. I would call them the big committees and the boutique committees. The Banking Committee is an example of a big committee. It is an essential element. Other people may take the Social Affairs Committee as being a big committee. There has to be a distinction between what is essentially the big committees, where you want larger representation, and the boutique committees, in which the representation could be as few as five or six.
I think that might meld the two: the larger committees with the major issues, where people want to spend some time, and what I call the boutique committees dealing with less important issues.
I leave that for your consideration.
Senator Robertson: If we had subcommittees that were open to membership of the general assembly, we might catch the imagination of some senators who do not want to attend committees now.
Senator Grafstein: You anticipated what I was going to say. With regard to human rights, I believe that, because of the issues, it is important for us to have a forum on human rights alone, and I think international human rights is the way to approach it. My view is that a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs committee, open to a much smaller number of experts, perhaps three or five, on a rotating basis, might solve the problem.
I am convinced of that, but I am not unconvinced that we should have a human rights committee on the domestic front.
I want to come to the topic we are on a moment ago, namely defence and national security. I am not sure what the proposed title of the committee is, because you have "defence and security" and then later you have "defence and national security." For the moment, let us call it "national defence and national security."
I am 100 per cent in favour of that committee, for all the reasons that Senator Kenny put so well. This is one legislative and policy area in which there is no duplication. We have left the defence establishment in ragged shape, because there has not been any countervailing political power in Parliament to promote the defence establishment. I am as embarrassed as is Senator Kenny when I see soldiers in rag-tag, below-poverty-level housing accommodation. I think it is a national disgrace. In my view, the only way to deal with that in the parliamentary process is to have a focussed committee, and I think a national defence committee would do a first-class job.
On the security side, I agree 100 per cent with Senator Kenny again. He has heard me on this before. This is where there is a national need. There is no parliamentary oversight on security. I commend Senator Kelly and his committee for dealing with that issue.
If we are looking at things that require parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary impulse, I believe that defence and national security should be a big committee.
I would vote right now, as a member of this committee, in favour of establishing a combined national defence and national security committee. I believe that, if you can get people interested, it should be one of the big committees, because I believe that we have understaffed this area.
Senator Joyal: I would like to address the proposal before us on the basis that Senator DeWare, Senator Robertson and Senator Beaudoin have been discussing it; that is, how we manage the participation of the official opposition. To me, the value of a democratic system depends upon how it protects the rights of the opposition. When I say "opposition" I include independent senators, because they, of course, by principle, do not sit on the government side.
I am very concerned about that because it raises a much broader question about the participation of people other than those on the government side in an institution that is supposed to be representative of the land. It is a very fundamental issue in our system. If we are to keep the institution relevant, its work must be relevant. To be relevant, the work of the Senate has to be representative of at least the two major national parties that are present in the institution at this time.
If we have to make the structure of the committee more flexible and have subcommittees that are open to other qualified members or permanent members of the committees, that would be very useful, provided that we maintain the presence of at least a minimum of permanent members of the larger committee on it to ensure that there is a link between the two. I think every one of us will agree with that.
I have seen the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which Senator Beaudoin and Senator Nolin are very faithful members. On the Liberal side, we usually have a larger number, sometimes even triple the number of opposition members. The committee has worked well because those who attend do so because they are interested, as Senator Robertson has said. Usually, when there is an issue that interests people, they attend and they participate.
I am concerned that in our revamping of the committees we take into account the possibility of the participation of the opposition. To me, this is essential to the credibility of the work of the Senate. To manage our committee structure to better reflect the participation of all senators, be they independent or members of the opposition, is a fundamental objective.
Therefore, much as I am sympathetic to the proposal of Senators Andreychuk and Kenny on those two topics, which certainly need to be kept at the forefront, I believe we should try to envisage that in the larger context of the restructuring of committees to make easier the responsibility of our Whips to maintain proper, balanced participation on the committees. To me, that is the paramount objective that we should try to achieve if we want to continue to maintain the level of productivity that we have had in the past years. It seems to me that for the short time that I have been here it has been maintained.
I think we should revisit the topic of committees and define their capacity to organize their work in a way that is more flexible and adaptable to the capacity of both parties to participate.
[Translation]
Senator De Bané: I would like to support Senator Kenny's motion that we establish a standing Senate committee on defence and security.
Indeed, the situation in Canada has really become unbearable. On the one hand, we are hoping to become a member of the G-8 to participate in governing the planet, however, on the other hand, we do not want to assume our share of responsibility in maintaining the stability of the planet. This is a blatant contradiction. We cannot aspire to become a member of the G-8 if we do not want to, at the same time, assume our responsibilities.
I was struck by the extent to which our soldiers feel abandoned by their representatives in Parliament. Basically, this is the only category of individuals who are asked to make the supreme sacrifice.
When I was in Yugoslavia, I saw what our soldiers had in terms of equipment compared to that of the other forces; I'm not afraid to tell you that I was humiliated. Their equipment was so old that, at the last minute, they had to screw steel plates on to their vehicles to stop terrorists' bullets from penetrating their vehicles.
They had to screw plates on to their vehicles because their equipment was so outdated compared with that of the troops from other countries there.
And when I am talking about other countries that were there, I'm referring to Bangladesh and Pakistan. We will not even talk about France and the other countries that had state-of-the-art equipment.
Here, when you meet soldiers, they will tell you that they feel as though they are a burden when the Department of Finance arbitrarily decides to slash a few billion dollars from their budget every year. In my opinion, there is something highly irresponsible about this.
The issue of security raised by Senator Kenny is very important. We used to think that the planet was governed by this balance between the East and West. This situation no longer exists today, and we get the impression that the planet is no longer being governed. With the proliferation of bacteriological and scientific weapons, et cetera, any tiny group could hold any country hostage. Once again, the issue of security becomes extremely important.
In Canada, if we want to be consistent and if we want to join the G-8, we have to take an interest in these two issues which, up until now, have remained completely in the shadows.
[English]
Senator Kenny: If I may, I would like to address some of the concerns about structuring that have been raised.
The Chairman: We are not quite there. We are still on defence and national security.
Senator Kenny: I understand that. I am addressing it in that context because the points have been raised under this item and I would like to reply to them if I am allowed.
Seven out of 12 committees have met for less than 36 hours per year.
Senator Beaudoin: Do you have a list?
Senator Kenny: Yes. We have circulated it many times. It is available to everyone.
We are talking about these people spending three hours per month on their committees. That is for seven of our twelve committees. We are not talking about an extraordinary burden here on people.
You will notice that in the proposal Senator Carstairs has broken the committees into groups so that they do not meet at the same time any more. One of the most frustrating things is that we are all meeting at the same time. That is what drives people right up the wall in this place. You will see that there is a series of groupings here. If you pick two from Group A, you will have a problem, because, according to the proposal, Group A committees will meet at the same time. However, if you pick one from each group you will not have that problem any more.
Next, if I may, I would like to take the figure of 30 active senators. If the Conservatives have 30 active senators -- and I think that was the figure raised by Senator Robertson -- let us assume that those 30 active senators each choose to sit on two committees. That means that there are 60 slots that you can fill. If there are 14 committees, that means that you can have an average of four people on each committee. Some of the committees meet for only three hours a month, and you are able to have four people on the committees, on average. If the committee has only six members, then you only need to have two people on it. We are not pressing the envelope as I see it so far.
If you had only 20 active senators, then you would be pressing the envelope, and I would accept that. However, if you have 30 active senators, then you could have an average of four per committee.
Let me address the question of subcommittees, because people have brought that up as being a panacea here. Subcommittees are not a panacea. First, a subcommittee chairman does not have the same clout as a full committee chairman. A subcommittee also does not have the same respect as a full committee does. It does not have the same status. For its budget it has to rely on a full committee chair.
You can shake your head as to whether you agree or not, but, if you take a look at the scheduling system, the moment you start setting up a plethora of subcommittees you run into the scheduling problem again. The system being proposed here by Senator Carstairs has no overlap in the way they are worked out. However, if you start putting subcommittees into it, then you have to treat them just like full committees in terms of the scheduling problem.
The Chairman: Senator Kenny, if I may, you are all over the place.
Senator Kenny: I am all over the place because I am answering what I have heard from Senators Robertson and Beaudoin.
The Chairman: When we get to the subject on the agenda, I think we can answer it.
Senator Kenny: I will try to be brief.
The question of big committees was raised by Senator Grafstein. I am on the Banking Committee. It has a serious workload. In fairness, we work most of the time with eight senators there, and sometimes there are 10.
I attended the meeting of the Banking Committee today. We had a minister and then we had the presidents of four insurance companies. I did not get to ask a single question today because we ran out of time with both panels. I would like to think that I could ask a question along with other people. I am not sure that the procedural questions should necessarily impede us from creating more committees, if there are senators who want to work on them.
Senator Beaudoin: When you say more, how many do you mean?
Senator Kenny: Fourteen. That is how you get the average of four each. Out of the 60, you could have four on each committee, on average.
Senator Cools: Many issues have been raised, and I should like to respond to a couple of them.
The business of how we proceed should be best addressed according to what was suggested by Senators Joyal and Robertson. I think we should proceed to look at the large picture as to how many committees we really want to have and then move backward from that position.
I have to tell you I have a lot of sympathy for what Senator Kenny is saying. If there is a group of senators, and if a senator goes out and finds people who want to work on issues, then they should be allowed and encouraged to go ahead and study. We all know that a lot of people just simply thwart and block for the sake of thwarting and blocking. If three to six senators want to do something, then they should be allowed, in principle, to go ahead and do it.
I do not believe that we have to have a fixed number of senators on committees. To go along the route suggested by Senators Robertson and Joyal, perhaps one can look at those committees on which one would want larger numbers, such as the major ones, and then the smaller ones could be considered.
I will also remind senators here that when we set up the Aboriginal Affairs Committee years ago -- and everyone has forgotten this -- one of the conditions on which both caucuses agreed to let Aboriginal Affairs be constituted was that it would not compete with other Senate committee sitting times. The people who wanted to do it were a group of people who really wanted to work on it. Everyone seems to have forgotten that. It was agreed that they would meet on Mondays or Fridays.
I sincerely believe that people should be able to go ahead and work as they see fit. At the same time, I think the entire system has to work and the opposition party has to be accommodated.
I am especially supportive of the idea of the involvement of independents once the government is allowed an additional member.
Senator Grafstein: I want to repeat what I said, and it is not inconsistent with what Senator Kenny has said. Everything that Senator Kenny has said can be incorporated in a general downsizing; that is, you reduce the big committees from 15 or 12 to eight or seven, for example, and then make the subcommittees much smaller -- five-member committees as an example.
With regard to subcommittees and scheduling, you just put subcommittees in different groups. For instance, if someone wants to be on the Foreign Affairs Committee and a subcommittee of Foreign Affairs, you ensure that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the subcommittee are in different groups so that there is a not a conflict.
I disagree with the senator's last point. A chairman becomes a powerful chairman based on his or her personality. The chairmen of subcommittees can become powerful chairmen if they decide that this is something they really want to pursue. They become powerful because of the work they do, not because of the title they hold.
In all the years I have been in the Senate, with the exception of the last 30 days, I have never been asked to chair a committee, yet I believe that I am making as great a contribution as anyone else in this room.
I have spent a fair bit of time in the last year or so dealing with two American senators. One is the chairman of their subcommittee on intelligence oversight, and he is a very powerful personality in Washington. The other is the chairman of their subcommittee on international trade, and he is also a very powerful senator. I will give you one example.
The senator and I are ad idem on what we want to do on the international front. I had been trying to see some of their officials at international trade for three months. I went down to Washington. He picked up the phone while I was sitting in his office, called the chief trade negotiator for the United States, and asked her why she could not come over to his office in the next hour.
Obviously the Senate is much more powerful there, but it had much to do with the fact that his committee became very powerful in terms of legislation.
I think it can work. I think it can work in a downsizing mode and satisfy the opposition. It is very important, as we have all indicated, to have a structure in which the opposition can play a useful, visible, and effective role.
The Chairman: I would like to put on the record that Senators Phillips and Marshall were very powerful chairs of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Senator Beaudoin: I hear the argument that if three, four or five people are very interested in doing something, they should be allowed to go ahead and do it. I agree with that. It is true that some people have a tremendous amount of energy and some people are very brilliant. I think we should take advantage of that.
As an example, the committee that studied euthanasia worked for 15 months. I was fascinated by that committee. There were so many problems, legally speaking. We worked very hard for over a year and we produced a report. I hope that we will return to those or similar issues one day.
The problem with changing the structure is that structures are meant to be in place for a certain time, and therefore we must be sure that they work. That is why I am inclined to think that the number of basic committees should not be very large, because we will never succeed with 14 committees. Of course, I have the opposition in mind when I say that. We must, as Senator Joyal indicated, be democratic in this. We have a parliamentary system. As I have said, two senators from the opposition and four from the party in power is not a big problem. However, if we have 14 committees, I do not think you can expect that all those six people will be there all the time. That is a lot of people. Six times 14 is 84. I do not think we have 84 active senators here. However, we must take advantage of personalities that have a lot of energy and are very bright.
Senator DeWare: I should like to remind my colleague that, when we set up our committee structure at the beginning of each session, we inquire of each senator what their preferences are. In that way, we try to establish who wants to work on which committee. If they put their name under a particular committee, we hope they will spend time there.
Senator Robertson: You have spoken about human rights and defence and security. I support both of those concepts. However, as I mentioned earlier, I believe it will be difficult to deal with any of these issues until we deal with structure.
I may have given Senator Kenny the wrong impression on numbers. According to my math, in about four years we will have about 25 active members in the Senate. Let us be practical. There are a certain number who do not want to sit on committees.
I really appreciate the concern being expressed by the government members here this afternoon and their understanding of the predicament we are in. I know they want to help us to resolve that predicament. If the situation were reversed, we would certainly want to be accommodating as well because the democratic process ceases to function if both parties are not involved.
If I may make a suggestion, we have to move back to the structure again. We have to work hard on that structure. We must get our caucuses involved with the structure to see if we can come up with some compatible configuration that will resolve the dilemma.
There is no sense in our sitting here and saying, "We will have 10 more senators in seven or eight years." With the way our rebuilding process is going, it could be a very slow process. Each party could find itself in this predicament. Once you change the committee structure, you will not be changing it every year. This process has already taken -- I hesitate to say it -- nine years.
The Chairman: Would you prefer to go back to your caucus to take a look at the structure?
Senator Robertson: I would like for us to take structure models to them which would accommodate the numbers problem that we have.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: We now have before us a comparison of the suggestions made along with the number of committees that we currently have. There is a suggestion from Senator Kenny, another one made by the Conservative Party, and one from the Liberal Party. Would it not it suffice to settle on the various proposals that we have before us today? I thought that we were supposed to study them today and to reach some conclusion before the end of the meeting.
Were these proposals made by the caucuses? That's the impression I have. Do we have to go back to our caucus again, even though we already have our caucus proposals, in order to study them today? If we don't come to an agreement between ourselves today, we'll have to say: "Well, out of all these proposals, do we have one that can satisfy both sides of the Chamber and ensure that the government, the opposition and the independent members are well represented? We have four proposals before us. Do we have to come up with a fifth?"
[English]
The Chairman: Has anyone had time to study the structures suggested or the numbers?
Senator Robertson, would you like to bring forward what you feel would be a good start, just to start the study?
Senator Robertson: I can go immediately to our caucus's proposal.
May I back up a bit? This is one of the reasons why our caucus wanted to use Committee of the Whole more frequently. It would help get some of the work done without involving those who sit on committees. The proposal that our caucus supports is the third one. It proposes that there be eight standing committees.
We were talking earlier in this committee about umbrella committees. Other subcommittees could fall under that item. We like the idea of having the subcommittees open to the membership of the entire Senate and even having the chairs of the subcommittees presenting reports to the Senate, once they had got through their own umbrella committee.
The proposal for 14 under eight umbrellas is something on which we would have to work. From our position, eight umbrellas would be the maximum. We would have difficulty even then with the subcommittees. The subcommittees could be scattered, as in Senator Carstairs's proposal. You could have them meeting like that.
The Chairman: In that event, you would foresee us not having a separate human rights committee or a defence committee.
Senator Robertson: We might have a full committee on human rights and the subcommittee could be social affairs. I rather like the idea of defence and security and human rights as being umbrella committees.
I think a starting point, senators, would be for us to look at the record prepared by staff. I have seen it some place. It sets out how many pieces of legislation each committee has dealt with. After all, our first responsibility is to legislation. We must then look at that other chart that Mr. O'Brien had prepared which shows how many hours each committee worked. If a certain committee worked only a few hours, then it could be tucked in as a subcommittee.
The Chairman: In looking at this committee, Senator Gauthier was ill for so long. This is not a reflection of the committee today.
Senator Kenny: This is a seven-year average.
Senator Beaudoin: When you are talking about dividing up committees, you mention the idea of there being an umbrella committee. In terms of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, it is a big umbrella. Obviously, human rights is included under that umbrella. Someone may say, "That is true, but international human rights is a very important field that is not dealt with as much and should be dealt with." In that sense, it may be with another committee.
I would not be ready to make a final decision on this today. The only thing I am ready to say today is that having the choice between 8 and 12, or 8 and 14, I have no hesitation in selecting 8.
When you are redesigning the contents of the eight main domains, of course it is difficult. If there is a committee on human rights, and you have the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in addition, at least one-half of the work that would need to be done by the legal committee would be gone. Most of the time we talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I agree with my colleague that a human rights committee should exist, but I am adamant that Legal and Constitutional Affairs should continue.
How will we combine the two? That is the problem. I would prefer to have human rights with Legal and Constitutional Affairs rather than anywhere else. If there is one thing in the world that is close to the Constitution, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Senator Cools: Are you proposing that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be done away with or that there not be a human rights committee?
Senator De Bané: He is saying that he is in a conflict of interests.
Senator Cools: Maybe that is a part of it. In point of fact, everything is legal and constitutional. Maybe if you look at the work that Legal and Constitutional Affairs does, then that committee could be done away with and there could be a human rights committee.
Senator Beaudoin: What I see is this: In the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee there are two primary considerations. There is the Charter of Rights and the division of powers; and there is federalism and democracy. If you want to divide that in two and have a human rights committee and a legal committee to deal mainly with criminal law, that is possible. However, we would be losing a lot of interest in dividing the committee in that way.
Senator Cools: If you are saying that much of what Legal and Constitutional Affairs deals with is human rights, then consider, for example, the study we did of the judges involved in the Judge Advocates General. That would certainly involve national defence. In other words, I am hearing you say that Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is really many other committees.
Senator Beaudoin: The Constitution is everything.
Senator Cools: That is my whole point.
Senator DeWare: That is your opinion.
Senator Beaudoin: It is obvious that it is everywhere.
Senator Kenny: Since Senator Robertson spoke to the Conservative proposal, I would like to have an opportunity to speak to the Liberal proposal.
The caucus considered this over two meetings. We had a total of six hours of discussion on it. It was taken seriously by the caucus in terms of the time invested in it.
A key element of it, to try to accommodate the opposition party, was to have flexible sizes of committees. It became apparent that, if there were 12 and 15 members, it would not work as the Senate is evolving. One thing we consistently overlook is that eight of our committees meet only three hours a month. That is only three hours of work a month for those poor, overburdened senators.
Senator Beaudoin: What do you mean three hours? The Legal Committee sits for more than three hours a week.
Senator Kenny: Senator Beaudoin, you have asked about this paper a couple of times. Why do you not read it? It is here, it is available, and it has been around since September. The numbers speak for themselves. Take a look at it and you will be shocked.
Aboriginal Affairs has met for an average of 9.6 hours per year for the last seven years. That is all they have worked. This committee has averaged eight hours per year over the last seven years. The Fisheries Committee has only sat one hour per month, on average, for the last seven years. We are not talking about people who are overworked. We are talking about an embarrassingly light work load that Jack Aubry would go to town with.
Eight of our committees are working less than an hour a week. Let us get it out of our minds that we have a whole lot of people who are struggling. I do not deny that there are some busy committees, and one of the purposes of this exercise is to rebalance the workload.
Legal is the busiest committee. It has a huge workload. The same is true of Banking. But it decreases from there.
With regard to independent senators, I have the impression that there is a consensus around the table that independent senators should be involved in the process. We are wasting a resource. I also have the impression that there is a consensus around the table that we can cover this off by having an extra Liberal on board. That provides more persons to sit on the committees than we now have. That will help in terms of building up the size of the committees.
The grouping structure here is designed to avoid the duplication that we are talking about, and this is a very important feature. I am frustrated right now because the Energy committee meets at the same time as Banking. I am on both committees. What do I do? If you look at the attendance in the Senate right now, you will see a 50 per cent attendance record, even with the low number of hours of meeting. The reason is not "lazy senators." The reason is that there are two committees meeting at the same time. If a particular committee has a good attendance record, it is because members have decided not to attend the other committee that was meeting at the same time, which therefore has a poor attendance record. It is a function of whether the committee is well chaired, has interesting topics, and the senators are engaged.
The whole rationale behind the Liberal proposal is to create more committees that people are interested in; to have smaller committees, and to structure them so that they do not meet at the same time. The same problem of scheduling exists for subcommittees as for full committees. Some say that you can solve our problem by creating a subcommittee. The subcommittee will almost inevitably have the same scheduling problem as a full committee has.
Yes, you could expand Group A and have five or six subcommittees in Group A, but you could also have a full committee meeting in that way.
There are problems and perhaps we will arrive at a solution at some point if the leadership of the Senate asks the Prime Minister to appoint a few Conservatives. Bill Kelly is here for that reason, as are a couple of other Conservatives who were Trudeau appointees.
Senator DeWare: I think looking at the scheduling of the committees is an excellent idea.
Senator Kenny: That relieves a very big and frustrating load.
Senator Beaudoin: For this committee, the Rules Committee, you say that the average for one year is eight hours?
The Chairman: I wish to correct that, and I contradict the figure for the Aboriginal Affairs Committee as well. I totally disagree. Our chair was sick and unable to call meetings for two or three years. How many hours have we met this year?
The situation with the Aboriginal Affairs Committee is the same. These figures are slightly misleading, to say the least.
Senator Kenny: With respect, that simply proves my point that, if you have a chair who is interested and active, the committee starts to function. The figures are not wrong. These are the correct figures from 1991 to 1998.
We have an active chair now and I submit that we had an active chair at an earlier period of time as well, and there was activity.
Senator Robertson: Was there progress?
Senator Kenny: We should give credit where it is due. In fairness, Aboriginal Peoples has not met until just recently.
Senator Bacon: Did they have any legislation?
Senator Kenny: No.
Senator Andreychuk: I am on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. It did not meet for a long time. However, we probably met as much as the Banking Committee when we did the report on aboriginal veterans. After that, we had very few meetings.
However, we have had a lot of legislation recently and we will probably get more. The problem with the legislation is that we always receive it on June 30 or December 25. Frankly, I do not think we have managed our time in the way that we should have. Is that our fault or that of the other side?
The Chairman: I do not think we can criticize. What we are talking about is the functioning of our committees and let us not make it an issue that we are blaming others for.
Senator Andreychuk: Having said that, I think that the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, even in the peak times, has never had full complements. I can name the bodies, if you want, who are there virtually all the time. It is a smaller group.
Senator Kenny: With respect, that is the best argument you can have for having an Aboriginal Peoples Committee of six or eight. If that is the number of people who want to work on it, then let us sit down and have the ones who care about it there. The same is true with the Fisheries Committee.
The Chairman: The size of committees must remain flexible.
Senator Kenny: There is a consensus for a flexible size. There is a consensus for a block of committees, the A, B, C, D, block that we had. There is a consensus for independent senators under the formula we have talked about here.
Senator Carstairs has her name underneath the blocking here. I assume she would not have put her name there if she did not support the idea. We want to be able to say that we may move one from Group A to group C. I detect a consensus for that as well.
That brings us then to the question of the number of committees that we can have. The reason caucus came forward with the number 14 was that knocking off some committees seemed to be a really tough thing to do, politically. If we decided, for example, not to have a Fisheries Committee, that would cause all sorts of grief on both coasts.
Senator Robertson: A subcommittee on fisheries would work more efficiently, anyway.
Senator Kenny: That may be true, but I am trying to describe to you the consensus of our caucus. It may not be tablets in stone. My objective is to tell you how the reasoning was arrived at.
The same was true in terms of trying to combine Agriculture, which does not meet all that much either, with another committee. The same was true when a discussion came up in terms of combining Privileges and Internal Economy. The feeling was that you were concentrating an awful lot of power in one tiny gang, and maybe you would not want to have one group of people who were both deciding the rules and doing the managing of the place. You may agree or not. I am just telling you what the thinking was.
We come back again to the question of the number of hours in which people are involved. It is hard to make a case, if there are people who are spending only three hours a month on average on a committee. You can dispute it in terms of some committees building up, because some committees do go through phases. We have here seven years of history. If you are only talking about three hours a month, for eight out of 12 committees, then --
The Chairman: That is not true.
Senator Kenny: Do not say it is not true. The figures are here.
The Chairman: You are talking about two elections.
Senator Kenny: There are always elections.
The Chairman: Not in seven years. You are talking about a change of government. You are talking about changes in chairs. Let us not keep criticizing certain committees, because a lot of these figures are, frankly, very misleading, for different reasons. Let us not dwell on them.
Senator Kenny: My difficulty is that, sotto voce, you start making editorial comments when I am trying to make my case. I do not mind your taking the floor afterwards and saying, "I do not agree." In fairness, having spent time working on these figures, I can tell you that you can break them up in any couple of year-chunks you want and you will find it does not work out much differently. The same is true with the number of sitting days we have. It does not work out much differently.
If you do not feel these figures are accurate, then you are welcome to ask Mr. O'Brien and his gang to divide them up in different ways to see if they show things a lot differently. I have gone through that exercise and I find that it is an accurate reflection.
It does not show what has happened this year, and it does not pretend to. It stops at 1998.
That was the thinking behind this. There is no intention to see a committee meet anywhere without having a reasonable balance between Conservatives and Liberals. In other words, if there are only two Conservatives available, then there will not be more than four Liberals on the committee. The intention is to try to get it so that senators who are interested can work on the stuff on which they want to work.
Senator Robertson: I have listened carefully to what has been said. I do not challenge the figures. I have been looking at them for eight or nine years and getting nowhere. It is time I move to other committees.
Chairman, what I promise to do is to pull the members of my caucus together as quickly as possible. I would like to have some more basic information. I do not think I have the information that tells me how many pieces of legislation each committee dealt with. Our primary function is to deal with legislation.
I know the Fisheries Committee, for instance, regardless of what our members may say about it, has only had one piece of legislation in the last few years. The rest of the time they ask, "What do we do next?"
Senator Kenny: There has been crises on both coasts and the committee has not examined them.
Senator Robertson: That is right. That is why I would like to have the statistics on the legislation for each committee that we have now and then start moving that around.
I understand what Senator Kenny is saying. I still lean toward, and I know my caucus leans toward, the idea of the Committee of the Whole and subcommittees, and I will tell you why we lean toward subcommittees instead of committees.
What I am about to say is a general statement. It is not directed at any chairman of any committee. No one will tell the chairman of even the tiniest committee what to do. If he or she wants to have more meetings, then they say, "I am not going to go with this grouping." That will only invite trouble, because whether it is the chairman of committee X, which meets three hours a month, or of committee Y, which meets more often, they still think they have the same authority. I do not think you will get through to some of these people. My past experience tells me it is a problem.
Senator Joyal: Madam Chairman, I do not know if you are in a position to answer my question or not. However, I do not see why there is a need to divide the Agriculture Committee and the Fisheries Committee, especially taking into account the number of pieces of legislation normally referred to those two committees. I do not see why, in principle, Fisheries should not be a subcommittee of Agriculture, or the other way around. At a certain point in time, they can subdivide themselves, if there is a specific investigation they want to conduct. The Fisheries Committee has been investigating quotas for some time. A couple of months ago, I read a summary of the report.
I wish to ask Senator Kenny if, in the study to restructure, he sees an incompatibility in principle with the idea of subcommittees?
Senator Beaudoin: I agree with your statistics, Senator Kenny, although two explanations are necessary. When you are talking about an average for a certain number of years, you may have a period which is very busy, which is the case for Aboriginal Peoples and Privileges and Standing Rules and Orders. I know that because I attend those committee meetings from time to time. Obviously, nine and eight in one year does not make sense, although it is true. However, we need some explanation, because there is nothing wrong; that is all.
Senator Kenny: I will respond to the comments in reverse order.
One of the features that I did not discuss in terms of the nominating process, where they are broken up like this, was that, if a committee did not require its time in a given week, the committee chair would so notify the clerk's office and a committee that was busier would pick that time up, but only for that week. In that way, each time a committee was not sitting, it would free up its time and another committee that happened to have a lot of work could pick up the time for the next week. That was seen as a more rational way of using the time rather than having it locked into a fixed block.
In response to Senator Joyal, all of the personnel problems of getting people to committees and having the appropriate coverage of opposition and government members apply to a subcommittee in the same way as they apply to a full committee. Therefore, the scheduling issues that come up would be exactly the same. You could not have a subcommittee function with only three or four Liberals on it. You must have the right number of Conservatives as well. So, in essence, it is no different from having a committee made up of six, or, if you wish, three and one. You have to turn to the blocks that we have here again and instead of adding four to each of A, B and C groups, you would add five or six. Whether you call it a full committee or a subcommittee is immaterial.
As to your comment about combining Fisheries and Agriculture, historically in this institution the argument has been that agriculture is a Prairies issue and Prairies senators like to deal with it in committee, while fisheries is a coastal issue and coastal senators like to be on that committee. Maybe that has changed, but that was always the argument in the past when people suggested some combination.
The Chairman: This blocking system was tried in the House of Commons. You belonged to a block and you were allowed to be a spare in that particular block. If you were not in that block, you did not touch that committee. They tried that and the members were jumping all over the place until finally they were no longer blocked to a committee.
I would like you to think about that when you are looking at the blocking possibilities.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: We all agree on the proposal to establish a human rights committee. Whether this will be a subcommittee or an umbrella committee remains to be defined. We also agree on the proposal to establish a defence and security committee. I did not hear anyone oppose that.
We also agree that we need to have a time slot for committee meetings. We can not go off in all directions without knowing when our committee is supposed to sit. We have consensus regarding this matter. We will have to spend more time on the remaining issues.
I would like to receive my documents more in advance. I received them yesterday, but that doesn't give me enough time because I arrive on Tuesday morning. I only found out yesterday that there was a meeting today. We will have to take the time to prepare adequately if we want to be able to provide a definitive opinion on the various issues before us.
Nevertheless, we have reached a consensus today about certain things. As for the number of committees, the use of the committee of the whole or the size of the committee, these are things that we will have to look at later. Will there be 8, 10, 12 or 14 members? Will we be establishing more or fewer subcommittees? Perhaps some issues should be grouped together and given to the same committee to keep the members busy. At this point, we could add them to the eight that have been proposed. It would make a lot of sense to put many of them in the same group. There are some things that can be put together very well.
Will we be adding any other committees later on? We will have to ask ourselves this question and be ready for the next meeting.
[English]
Senator Joyal: To continue in the same vein, I thought we had a consensus on downsizing membership. There is no doubt that we cannot increase committee membership from 12 to 14 while the number of opposition members is decreasing. Either we increase the membership to 14 and we reduce the number of committees, or we try to make it some kind of compromise. There are a number of committees that could be revisited.
I have listened to Senator Kenny about subcommittees, but I still think that subcommittees are not to be totally set aside. My friend Senator Bacon chairs Transport and Communications. Consider the personality of Senator Forrestall on transportation matters and my personality on cultural matters. We are two different kinds of persons with different kinds of interests. I would not mind sitting on Transport and Communications even though I do not have a personal interest in transport, although I recognize its importance for Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: I created two subcommittees right at the start when I noted that the members were divided according to different fields of interest: transportation and communications. However, the members of the other subcommittee were present when a committee meeting was held, because they were interested.
[English]
Senator Joyal: That is exactly my point. According to the comments you have made, this seems to work well for you. If that is possible in a committee where coupling two interests is not perhaps the best way to proceed, I do not see why that is not possible in some other committees. That would help us to revisit the overall number of committees and try to rebalance this.
I am not in a position to make a definitive suggestion in terms of the numbers of committee, but is it not possible to make some scenarios and look into them?
Senator Kenny: Of course it is possible. However, there are scheduling problems. It works very well with Senator Bacon's committee because they have separated into subcommittees, but they are sitting at times when other committees want to meet. As a consequence, if one of the persons on one of her subcommittees is also on another committee, then he will be missing from one or the other.
If you let the committees divide into subcommittees, the first problem is scheduling so that you do not have a conflict. The second problem is keeping the opposition-government balance, which you would have to keep with a full committee in any event.
Senator Joyal: On the other hand, with a subcommittee you do not need as many members.
Senator Kenny: But we have agreed to have a flexible number. It says seven and five; six and four; five and three; and four and two. You could even go down to one and three, if you wanted. If there are only four senators who want to work on it, then let them work on it.
Senator Joyal: We have addressed one aspect, which is the membership composition. It seems to me that that is something easier to solve than the number of committees.
Could we not have made for us some kind of simulation concerning the numbers of committees and how they would work? I do not have the answer today. I wonder if we should not try to revisit that matter and make simulations concerning time allocations to see what is possible.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Joyal touched on some points that I wanted to touch on. I will just underscore what he said.
One principle that was put forward with which everyone agreed was that, with the declining numbers in the opposition, we are concerned that the issue be addressed in some form. We are saying that we are having trouble managing that many committees. I will be very frank. At one point in time some committees were very important. They did not seem to be covered anywhere else. However, once you set it up, a full committee is very hard to dismantle. A subcommittee can wax and wane and lie dormant for a time -- such as, for example, the subcommittee that dealt with aboriginal veterans. If such committees have an issue, they meet. If they do not, they do not have to meet.
There is more flexibility with subcommittees in respect of moving them out of the eye of the storm, or perhaps even disbanding them. It is very difficult to disband a full committee, as you can see. Many of these committees are here because of historic reasons. Frankly, I will take on Banking, Trade and Commerce. They have done a fantastic job on studies. Why? Because someone, historically, set up Banking, Trade and Commerce. However, watch how much legislation they actually deal with. It does not merit the attention it gets from a legislative point of view. Thus, some of us sitting in some other areas say that we would like to have 12 committee members and that kind of attention on issues that are not even on here. I could add another 20 legitimate issues that we could study and for which we could have standing committees. Look at the United States and the House of Representatives and Congress.
We are handling the politics of the Senate and the practicalities. The practicality is that the opposition cannot handle as many committees as we have. The politics is how to bring it down to a manageable amount without causing turf fighting, which starts to happen. How can we keep the Senate current? It seems to me it is through a combination of subcommittees and other things.
When you cannot get your agenda on these committees, where do you go? You go to a special committee. We have eaten up a lot of money on these special committees. If you look at the studies on euthanasia and post-secondary education, you will see what I mean. To me, that is the politics of it.
How do we bring down the structure to a manageable level and be creative enough to allow those groupings of senators who want to do something which is current and necessary? I think it requires another look at how can we accomplish that.
The Chairman: We have not even touched the subject of joint and special joint committees.
Senator Beaudoin: I want to raise one point before we forget about it. It is that we propose that most legislation be referred to the Committee of the Whole. In my opinion, that is a debate that should take place. If most of the legislation is sent to the Committee of the Whole, then, obviously, the standing committees will be less busy. In my opinion, that is cause for a big debate.
I understand that the Liberals are against that. Criminal law, for example, cannot be dealt with in Committee of the Whole. It is very difficult. However, there is some merit in it, too. I do not say that I am for or against. However, I say this: It has an influence on the result of our discussion. It has to be debated, because it has a direct influence on the number of committees and so on.
I even raise the question whether it is possible from a parliamentary point of view to send most legislation directly to Committee of the Whole. It is a proposition that should be debated.
Senator Robertson: I also would like to see this committee have a good debate on the issue of Committee of the Whole. If we all went back to our offices and thought about it for a couple of days and then came back with all the pros and cons, we might find something in the middle of the road that would take the load off some of the committees that have a lot of legislation. I just do not think we should throw it out completely. If we know what the problems are, then there are methods of devising solutions to those problems. If it is a problem for the government, then let us not just throw it out. Let us see what the problems are, and perhaps we can tidy them up.
Coming back to the issue of subcommittees, I believe that subcommittees would give more flexibility. A subcommittee is not created to be in place forever. A subcommittee should be designed to deal with a specific issue or concern that pops up. The big advantage for our diminishing opposition with subcommittees like that is that some of those senators who are not interested in attending a traditional committee might attend such a subcommittee. Those members would not have to come from the umbrella structure. They could be anyone in the Senate who is interested in that particular issue.
For instance, there might be a senator who has not gone to a committee for years and simply will not go; however, if there is a particular topic in which he or she interested, I think we might pull some of them out of the woodwork to get involved.
Senator Andreychuk: We did that on the post-secondary education issue.
Senator Kenny: Of course, whenever you pull a senator out of a committee and put him into a special committee, you run into a scheduling conflict. That comes up just as sure as God made little green apples.
Senator Joyal raised the point about doing a simulation. One could think of a model where there were no committees on a permanent basis. Each year when the committee of Selection sat down, a request would be sent around to people asking where their interests lie. committees would be set up depending on the interest.
The obvious argument against that is that there are some "glamour committees." Foreign Affairs seems to be a glamour committee, and I gather there is always a waiting list for that.
We could do a simulation where the committee of Selection takes the Liberal model and the Conservative model and does an allocation. We could see how that comes out and whether there are enough senators.
The committee of Selection could also say that the Fisheries committee is not meeting very often, so they could make it a one-and-three committee. We would then wait to see if a number of senators came out of the woodwork to say, "I want to be on the Fisheries committee, so please expand it to six members instead of four."
I do not know whether that would solve the problems. I think the solution is varying the size of the committees. If interest drops off and senators are not going to attend, and if the 1999 attendance figures back up that assertion, maybe we do not have that committee in the year 2000.
Senator Robertson: In addition to 14 structured committees with time slots, will we still have subcommittees and special committees? If we do, our problem increases dramatically. I do not think we can create a rule that stops that.
Senator Joyal: I think that the law of reality will get you back. We can multiply the number of special committees or joint committees forever, but at a certain point in time we will not have the bodies available to staff them. There are so many things we can do, but there is a limit.
When we look into the composition of the Senate, those who come and those who leave, there is an exponential curve. Senators who do not come from the political field take a certain number of years to familiarize themselves with the rules of the Senate and the life of being a senator. On the other hand, we have a number of senators who take things a little easier when they are close to retirement.
Let us take the example of my friend Senator Grafstein. I think he is a very dedicated person. He has never been the chairman of a committee, but he is still here, working hard. For one dedicated person, how many at the beginning and at the end do you have to manage? That is the reality when we define new special committees or new joint committees.
The Chairman: Perhaps the steering committee can meet after consulting with the leadership to see if they can come up with something like small committees or subcommittees, with membership down as low as Senator Kenny suggested, three and one. Perhaps the steering committee can come back to the committee with an acceptable proposal.
Senator Beaudoin: Fourteen is not cast in stone.
Senator Robertson: Perhaps our staff could bring forward some statistical evidence on legislation.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Robertson: As well as the number of special committees we have had and the number of joint committees and special joint committees.
The Chairman: Following up on Senator Andreychuk's suggestion, I would like to have a list of committees in the United States for us to look at.
Senator Andreychuk: I did not suggest that, but it is a good idea.
The Chairman: You mentioned that their structure is different. They probably have too many.
Senator DeWare: Committee meetings held in the First Session of the 36th Parliament totalled 681. They sat 1,449 hours. They heard from 2,563 witnesses, for an average of 3.8. committees reported 157 reports to the house, 20 by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that information, senator.
The committee adjourned.