Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders

Issue 11 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 23, 1999

The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 7:07 p.m. to consider matters pursuant to its mandate under rule 86(1)(f) of the Rules of the Senate.

Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.

We now have two proposals before our committee with respect to the number of committees. The proposal I am about to give you is based on two discussions with the government members in special caucuses. They suggest that there be 14 committees but that the number of senators on each committee be flexible.

By that we mean that committees could have as many as 12 or as few as 6 members. In each case, the majority party would have a majority of two members. This flexibility should meet the concerns of the Progressive Conservative Party that they will have only 25 to 30 active senators within the next year or so. There was a fear that there would not be enough senators to cover all the committees.

If each active senator had two committees, according to the distribution set out in Chart I, only 27 opposition senators would be needed. That should fully staff their membership.

The proposals in Chart II, as suggested by the vice-Chair, would reduce the number of committees to 10. Human rights and defence and security would not be stand-alone committees, as has been requested many times, but they will be merged with other committees. In one of the proposals, the Aboriginal Peoples Committee would disappear and agriculture, forestry and fisheries would be merged with natural resources.

The argument made by opposition members is that this proposal would be staff and cost effective. However, subcommittees are just as demanding of staff and costs as are full committees. It is unlikely that the Natural Resources Committee would not establish subcommittees on agricultural issues, fisheries, forestry and perhaps energy. Therefore, there could be absolutely no savings at all.

We will have to decide whether we continue to work toward having 14 committees or accept the proposition of having 10.

Tonight, we are not ready for a final proposal.

[Translation]

Senator Bacon: I would just like to point out that in the list of committees, the reference should be to the Transport and Communications Committee.

The Chair: The appropriate correction will be made.

Senator Bacon: That is what we see elsewhere.

[English]

The Chairman: There was not time to prepare for a motion concerning the 14-committee proposition because of the changes necessary to our rules. Therefore, we will have that ready for our next meeting.

Senator DeWare: Concerning option 3, which has natural resources including energy, I can see how it could work. There is no doubt that there will be some opposition to it. On the other hand, everything that deals with agriculture, forestry and fisheries would come before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. If there was only one item on the agenda or one piece of legislation coming from the House at one time, which dealt with one of those areas, then it could be dealt with by the whole committee.

Senator Rossiter: Which committee would consider an issue like rBST?

Senator DeWare: That would be dealt with by a subcommittee; or, if natural resources had nothing before it, they would deal with it as a whole.

We must show all the reasons why it might work and then the reasons why it would not work.

The Chairman: I hear what you are saying. I have spoken with members of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. It will not be an easy situation for them to say, "I no longer have my committee but I am part of the Natural Resources Committee." We will have some serious problems along that line.

Senator Kenny: The key to the suggested committees' membership on Chart I will be the Senate Selection Committee. It will be driven, I believe, by the interests expressed by different senators in different committees.

Selection committees have frequently found that there are some committees in the institution that do not have 12 senators who want to sit on them. Others have more than 12 who want to sit on them.

I think that this proposal is intended to accommodate two objectives. The first is to recognize the changing equilibrium between government and opposition in the Senate. The second is to recognize that committees function best when all of the committee members are there because they have expressed an interest in the committee's work. Therefore, it makes more sense to have a committee of six, if there are only six senators who want to pursue that particular area of endeavour. I would even be open to a committee of four. However, this proposal suggests a minimum of six and that the size of committees varies according to the interest expressed by different members.

It is difficult to say whether there will be a good match between interest and numbers. I think that the Seletion Committee will have an opportunity, if this proposal goes forward, to vary the size of the committees from time to time. There is significant precedent in the Senate for having committees of different sizes. The concept of tailoring them periodically to suit the changing interests of the Senate membership has a certain appeal to it. I certainly see no logic in having senators, which is the case now, being assigned to committees simply because they must fill out the numbers. As a consequence, we have a higher absentee rate than we should.

This proposal, combined with the proposal of block booking that we discussed earlier, where we would divide up the committees into blocks, again through the Selection Committee, would go a long way toward improving the attendance record of senators and the institution as a whole. Under that proposal, one would indicate an interest in group A, group B, group C or however many groups there are. All of the committees in group A would then meet at one time and all of the committees in group B would meet at another time, and so on.

I believe that we have poor attendance records now because we have double or triple booking of committees. As we speak, I am supposed to be in two committees, here and in the Banking Committee. And frankly, because some committees are of great interest to some senators but not to others, the overall attendance is poor.

Therefore, tailoring the size of the committees places a lot of responsibility in the hands of the Selection Committee. However, if its members are skilful, I think we would find ourselves with more productive and happier senators and a better institution.

Senator DeWare: I agree with Senator Kenny on the issue of block booking. I liked the proposal when I saw it. I could see how it would work and make life easier for most people concerned. I would certainly go along with that part of the proposal.

The Chairman: With your permission, honourable senators, I will ask our clerk to come up with a proposition in which our motion will include the changes necessary to the rules, the blocking situation and how it could work. After that, we should get the steering committee together and come back to you with a finalized proposition.

Is that agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Kenny: My impression was that we felt collectively that we did not need a change in rules to go to block booking, that it was simply something that could be accommodated without changing the rules. However, we do need job descriptions for the committees, if we are planning to look at this proposal.

Senator DeWare: After we get it all together, then we will take it to caucus and, hopefully, we can go with it after that.

The committee adjourned.