Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 5 - Evidence, April 21, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 10:05 a.m. to begin a study on the Senate committee system as established under rule 86, taking into consideration the size, mandate, and quorum of each committee; the total number of committees; and available human and financial resources.
Senator Donald Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, our committee begins its work on the structure of Senate committees. Last March 25, the Senate entrusted our committee with a mandate to study the Senate committee system, specifically taking into consideration their size, number and quorum as well as the human and financial resources with which they are provided.
Pursuant to the Senate's order of reference, we must table our report on these matters by June 30, 2009 at the latest.
[English]
At the outset of our study on these questions, I would like to make some preliminary remarks that may help guide our committee in its deliberations.
Senators will recall that the initiative to look at our current committee structure comes from both political parties' leaderships — both Senator Cowan and Senator LeBreton spoke in the chamber on this — and the agreement that it was time for the Senate to re-evaluate its committee system.
The last major restructuring of committees in the Senate took place over four decades ago, in 1968. A new restructuring of committees, or some modifications, might be required to adjust our committee system to the needs of the 21st century. It was suggested that we consider the following factors:
Are the committees relevant to modern-day Canada and the policy concerns of today? Are the committees and the committee system making the best use of resources, mindful of senators' time and taxpayers' dollars?
The first group of questions is about the number, the size and the membership of our committees. The Senate currently has 16 standing committees, in addition to, of course, the Committee on Selection.
Is the number adequate? For the sake of comparison — and we exclude the joint committees — the Australian Senate, with only 76 senators, also has 16 standing committees.
The House of Lords has 26 select committees, 6 to 18 members, but can count on 742 potential members to fill those committees.
The French Senate, which has 343 members, has only 6 standing committees, comprised of 49 to 78 members, and has a sophisticated system of parliamentary missions and study groups with each committee.
The United States Senate has 12 standing committees of 12 to 28 members, some of them having up to 12 subcommittees.
Our committees currently have a membership of 9 to 15 members, except for the five-member Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators. The quorum for all committees is currently 4 members. It does not matter if the committee is 5 or 15; the quorum is 4 members, except, again, for the Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators, which has a quorum of 3.
Why do committees with 9 or 15 members have to have the same quorum of 4, and should the quorum of a committee be adjusted depending on the committee's size?
The second group of questions is about the mandate of these committees. Our current system is, in any case, in need of some adjustments. For example, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, believe it or not, has responsibility for "Indian and Inuit affairs," while the committee on Aboriginal peoples is entrusted with the mandate with respect to all Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Our committees are currently organized on a policy basis. Should we recommend that they be organized differently? Should there be new committees created and existing committees abolished? For example, an option would be to increase the number of committees and organize them around specific policy issues or maybe on a departmental basis, as is currently the case in the other place.
Another option would be to have fewer committees with larger memberships and to organize them on broader policy areas. Specific concerns or policies could be addressed by subcommittees. With respect to subcommittees, should they still be created by each committee, or should they be created by the Senate itself, as the eleventh report of this committee recommended in the year 2001? Should non-members of a committee be allowed to be members of a subcommittee? How can committees and subcommittees be more efficient and consistent in their collection of evidence, especially during fact-finding missions?
If we have a committee of 15 and 3 people go on a fact-finding mission in British Columbia, is that efficient, particularly when often no translation occurs and no record is kept, except for some handwritten notes scribbled on an envelope?
Would reducing the number of positions on committees reduce the competing demands on senators' time and enhance the development of senators' expertise?
The last group of questions is about the resources needed for these committees to be effective and efficient. Committees are currently staffed by a clerk, administrative support and one analyst or more from the Library of Parliament. Are these resources appropriate to our needs in the 21st century? Are these resources comparable to those used in the other place to do the same work, or in other countries for that matter?
These are important and difficult questions, but the good news is that some important work has been done in 2001 in the eleventh report of this committee. We could start with reviewing that work, build on its recommendations, if any of them are still relevant, add our own and submit a report before the summer.
With that brief overview, the purpose of today's meeting is to hear from each of you, your views and ideas on what this study should encompass and what areas you would like to see us emphasize.
The floor is now open, and I will begin with Senator Nolin.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I am assuming that your introductory remarks are not exclusive in the sense that there can be room for other topics in what I feel to be this very appropriate study.
I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to two matters concerning committee chairs and deputy chairs. As we will be looking into the structure and operation of the committees, I ask myself the following question that I put to you now. For several years, certainly when I entered the Senate, though it has changed since, committee chairs have begun to receive remuneration specifically for their duties as chair, and deputy chairs receive half of the chair's salary.
Would it be appropriate to eliminate, or to maintain, this additional compensation, or should an additional budget be provided to those who take on the duties of chair and deputy chair?
Are they mutually exclusive? Does a salary exclude the possibility of an increased budget for chairs and deputy chairs, or would it be better to have both a salary and an additional budget?
I feel that we should look at that question during our study.
[English]
The Chair: Those are excellent points.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your presentation to refresh our memories, but my first reaction following your presentation is to ask whether there are other pressing issues related to the functioning of the committees today. In other words, a certain number of senators have been chair or deputy chair of committees for a period of time, and, of course, they have had the experience of managing a committee. There is wisdom there. Do we have the benefit of comments, suggestions or remarks from those senators where they could provide us with their experience as chairs of committees?
The Chair: Would you suggest bringing them before this committee as a group?
Senator Joyal: Maybe as a group, or perhaps find a way to poll them, to get their input into our operation.
I see senators around the table who have been chairs of committees for certain periods of time; it would be helpful to get their comments on what conclusions they have drawn about the operation of the committee during the time they were chair of that committee. Many of them, of course, are active senators, and many of them are members of other committees. It might be one way for us to get some additional input into the issue.
The Chair: A number of the members of this committee, people around this table, are chairs of committees now.
Senator Joyal: I know, but other senators also have been chairs as well.
I am just raising it with you. That may be one way for us to get additional input about the need for adjustment of the committee systems.
The Chair: From talking with other chairs yourself, have you heard them raise other issues about committees, their function, their structure and so on?
Senator Joyal: Recently, no, I have not raised it. However, I wonder if there is a way for us to receive the input of senators who have been chairs of committees for a reasonable period of time, which, as you know, has been the case in some committees. It is important, if we are to change the system substantially. I am not thinking here about names of committees, which is more what I call "maintenance amendments." However, if we are to change something substantial, for instance, in terms of membership — as you said in your presentation, the three main issues of number, size and membership — and make recommendations that have a chance of being adopted by the Senate, it could be a way for us to get input from those senators, especially on those three specific issues and other issues they might have.
It would be a fair way to more or less update our report of 2002 that has not been adopted by the Senate, unless we just want to review the report and bring it up to date through our own means. As I say, it is a suggestion that I have made to the committee at this point, which could be helpful for us to gather the additional information.
The Chair: It is a good suggestion. Does anyone have any comments on the suggestion?
Senator Milne: A simple questionnaire would do it.
The Chair: Would you be satisfied with that, Senator Joyal?
Senator Joyal: Absolutely.
The Chair: We will do that.
Senator Joyal: The format to me is secondary. The issue is how we get the results of their experience on those three issues: number, size and membership.
The Chair: Senator Milne says that she is not a chair now but has been a chair many times before. It should not be just to the current chairs but also to people such as Senator Milne who have had extensive experience chairing in previous years.
Senator Joyal: Exactly. For example, Senator Carstairs has occupied the position of chair, leadership and so forth. She certainly has experience. It is the same on the government side. Some senators — I am thinking of Senator Andreychuk and so on — have been very involved in the committees. Senator Stratton has been very involved in committee work. Those senators have experience on their own basis that could be very helpful for us to hear.
The Chair: I have chaired five Senate committees myself, so I have a little experience.
Senator Joyal: You are certainly one who can testify as well. Maybe we should have you as a witness.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Following what Senator Joyal was saying about the chairs and the number of committees, I feel that we should include the standing joint committees. At the moment, there are two of them, and when this report was done, there were three. I was chair of the Joint Committee on Official Languages when it was decided that the Senate needed its own Official Languages Committee. Should it be the same for the Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and the Committee on the Library of Parliament? I think that we should look at the question, especially if we are using this report and bringing it up to date. In a word, should there be more joint committees, or none at all?
[English]
Senator Smith: I am fairly open-minded on the issues we have before us. I want to believe that everyone's primary interests are for the institution, to try to make it function better and not be driven by partisan agendas.
On the total number of committees, I do not know that we will see a dramatic change one way or the other. I am not so influenced by trying to get a fixed number, but there is a very clear case for trying to rationalize the scope of committees in a more meaningful way. You gave several good examples, such as the Aboriginal and social issues. It is just irrational. I keep hearing the argument that the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs should be a separate committee from the Defence Committee. I am not totally convinced of that; however, I am open-minded.
With respect to the size of membership, we have 3 sizes now: 9, 12 and 15. I am not sure we need 3 categories.
Senator Losier-Cool: No, you are right.
Senator Smith: There are some committees where they do not have a huge number of senators who have a great interest or expertise in that committee. With other subject matters — for example, defence and foreign affairs — there is broad interest.
We may wind up with two sizes: one a little larger where there is more interest and one smaller where there is less interest. It allows for members of the Senate to be on two or maybe three committees. Every now and then you will hear of someone being on five and six committees. With the increase in numbers on the Conservative side, that situation has been helped. Some people were just so stretched it was hard to function. That is resolving itself on its own.
I have a particular interest in the role of the special committees because of the anti-terrorism issue. I am continually told about an agreement that will revive it so that we can finish the work. Some people have made the case that it should go to one of the standing committees. If it is made up of the same members, then you do not have to rehear a large amount of evidence that otherwise you would need to hear. The logical conclusion of that is obvious.
At the end of the day, anti-terrorism is an area that probably should go somewhere. I am not convinced that it should necessarily go to the Defence Committee because sometimes they have a very heavy security bias, whereas part of the rationale for setting up the Anti-terrorism Committee had to do with aspects such as the Charter and whether or not some of the anti-terrorism measures that came in after 9/11 infringed on human rights. It may very well end up on the Human Rights Committee. This is the sort of thing that is worth being on the agenda to allow for a discussion about who monitors it once our report has gone in and what the government will do about it. My bias would probably be more on the rights side as opposed to the security side.
As for joint committees, we have three now. Is there a case for a fourth? I am not certain about that, but I am also open-minded about it.
People who are on this committee do, in fact, want to see the place function in a more efficient and rationalized way. I trust that everyone can deal with these issues in a non-partisan way that is best for the institution functioning in the most efficient way possible.
Senator Milne: I very much agree with Senator Smith comments. Following up, again, on Senator Joyal's suggestion of a questionnaire, it would be very easy to draw one up. It could be a simple "yes or no" comment following along the lines of your initial remarks, senator, because you pretty well laid out the ground for looking at these committees.
I find it very interesting — and since I chaired the Rules Committee, I am not being pejorative at all — that the only two 15-member committees, the two largest ones, are the two committees that I consider as navel-gazing.
The Chair: Administrative.
Senator Milne: They are administrative, looking at the affairs of the Senate and nothing else but.
The Chair: They do not look at public policy.
Senator Milne: No, they do not; they are housekeeping committees, yes, but "navel-gazing" will do.
Probably the size of some of the other committees should be increased because they are of public policy and of great concern to the people of Canada.
I have grave concerns about nine-member committees because that forces the chair, occasionally, to have to vote, to declare himself or herself, and does not allow him or her to chair in a non-partisan manner. Two sizes would be good, but perhaps some of the other committees should be increased to 15 members.
The Chair: Those are good points.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to go back to the rationale of us studying this whole issue. Is it just a review to see if we can improve the existing system? Are we standing back to look at public policy and administration in a more modern-day way? We could be guided by what the United States, England and France would do. We would want to know how to be more efficient in our business. Committees were set up because we could not get into in-depth study on public policy on the floor of the chamber. We went into committees to actually spend more time on the issues. The rest of the Senate relies on those committee members to do their due diligence, et cetera.
I want to know if we are standing back and looking at how we can update our review of legislation and issues, or whether we are simply looking at the existing system and seeing if we can make it better. We need to know what we are doing and why we are doing it.
The Chair: I think it is both, frankly.
Senator Andreychuk: If it is a full review, then I think we should do it one way. If it is simply to review the existing system, that is an easier task.
It is a good idea to canvass previous chairs and deputy chairs, but the way of the conflict of interest when we reviewed our legislation is the best. All senators have an opinion about what is good or bad about committees. If you have never been a chair or deputy chair, you may have some perspective of what is necessary. What are the needs of the committee members? We should straighten out who the clerk reports to. Is it the chair, the steering committee or the committee as a whole? What are the needs of members today? Whether it should be a questionnaire or a letter, I do not know, but it should go to all senators. Hopefully, it will draw out the experience of chairs and deputy chairs as well as those who have not done that task but have a great input into committees, because we rely on our members.
Senator Smith: Agreed.
Senator Andreychuk: One of the complaints I would make is that when we are doing a study and change membership half way through that we go back to square one on the study.
Senator Milne: Also clerks these days.
Senator Andreychuk: Also clerks, et cetera. Those issues impact the committee's style, as well as a whole host of others that I will not repeat.
The other issue is fairness in committees. The Senate unanimously set up two committees, the Defence Committee and the Human Rights Committee. They are relegated to one slot on Mondays. It is very difficult to explain to people how important human rights are to Canadians. We pride ourselves on that, yet we give it one slot with three hours on a Monday.
The Chair: There was no time on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
Senator Andreychuk: That is my point. We can get into this discussion.
In fact, Defence and Human Rights have sustained themselves now for quite some years, and have, I think, proven their worth. What is so important in having every committee sitting where it historically sat? Maybe we should have rotation every two years or five years and everyone could take their turn on a Monday.
Senator Losier-Cool: Official Languages is the same.
Senator Andreychuk: You are absolutely right, Senator Losier-Cool. I have excluded Official Languages, and I did not intend to do so. Three committees are in this position. Official Languages is as equally important as many of the committees. Maybe a Thursday slot could go to one of those committees every five years. In other words, fairness between committees is extremely important. We have not come to the conclusion that some have legislation and, therefore, they get Tuesday and Thursday. It is hard, despite the commitment, to get people to come on Mondays when they have to travel four, five, six, or seven hours, and that is one more day out of their life. That issue needs to be canvassed.
Another issue is how we set up special committees. We have had a bit of a dialogue about how we get to the topics that we study. Does a discussion within a committee produce the study? Is it a single senator saying, "I think this is worthy. Where do we slot it in for study?" Some of us are hesitant to initiate new topics because we know that the committees are already doing so much. Other senators do not have that same hesitancy to say, "This is important to me." It is very hard, then, to say "no" to a senator, so we end up studying those issues. We then try to deal with it in subcommittees. Therefore, we have that whole issue of how we initiate what we study.
The only set rule at the moment is that legislation trumps all, and government legislation trumps other legislation. Beyond that, how do we arrive at the point of conducting a study? Do we canvass Canadians to determine what is important? Do we lobby each other to begin the studies? Inevitably, they involve resources and time and may not have been the sum total of the wishes of the Senate. It is difficult to tell a colleague who is so dedicated to an issue that it should not be studied. We could have some fairer way of bringing issues forward. Maybe once a year we can bring forward these issues, and otherwise we go through caucus or other processes. Initiating these things through notices of motions often gets us into conundrums. Many issues remain unanswered, and I would like to know what process we will follow in our analysis before the end of the day.
The Chair: You asked if we should be looking at a better way to study legislation. When a bill is referred by the Senate to a committee, what new things do you think a committee should be doing to better analyze and study a particular bill?
Senator Andreychuk: We can revisit studying subject matters. That has been an ongoing issue. I was thinking more that some bills could be done in Committee of the Whole as opposed to being referred to committee.
My greater preoccupation is that if we are sending legislation to committees, all committees be treated fairly. Some were feeling that those committees that sit on Monday never get legislation. Well, we do get legislation. Why are there, as someone pointed out, 9-person committees as opposed to 15-person committees? Many housekeeping factors have a real impact on the content of the meetings. If you sit on a Monday and you sit with only nine members, those factors work against a committee instead of for a committee. There should be more fairness between the committees.
Senator Keon: I have sat on a number of committees since I have been here. I only have a year left to go, so I will not be sitting on many more.
Senator Joyal: We will call you as a witness.
Senator Milne: Yes, an expert witness.
Senator Keon: It is my impression that the committees function very well. They do good work. We should be careful about getting into any sort of major change. The committees have evolved over time, perhaps not according to specific rules, but they are at a pretty good place. Everyone is given the opportunity in the Senate to request what committee they would like to sit on so that they can use whatever expertise they have to make a contribution to the overall function of the Senate.
I totally agree with Senator Milne's proposal that has been enlarged a bit by Senator Andreychuk. Let us get at some information and see what the problems are. Some changes that should be made are obvious, as the chair mentioned, such as where some committees are really not exercising the appropriate mandate or exercising too much of a mandate, and that should be adjusted. Some other changes about size and so on will improve the functions of the committees.
I do not want to leave you with the impression that I am saying that we should quickly review all of the committees and do a quick fix. I do not mean that at all. We should get some broad-based information before we proceed any further. Having said that, I would be very cautious about any major change. The committees give the Senate a real credibility. We do not want to disrupt the best thing we have going for us.
Senator Losier-Cool: Following Senator Keon's comments and Senator Andreychuk's question, is there an answer to Senator Andreychuk's question as to why we are doing this?
The Chair: We have a mandate. We have an order from the Senate to do it. The Senate order was spoken to by Senator Cowan for the opposition and by Senator LeBreton for the government. The two of them outlined their reasons for doing it.
Senator Losier-Cool: How we do it is very important.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: One of the things that sets us apart from the other place in terms of committees is that our committees cannot sit at the same time as the Senate. I understand why we have that rule; I think we all do. But perhaps it is time for us to look at whether we should maintain the rule or whether we can change it so that committees would meet at less unconventional hours, like Monday morning or Friday evening.
The concern is that we may in fact have committees meeting on Monday mornings or Friday evenings. I feel that we must ask ourselves the question. Should we keep the rule that prevents committees from meeting at the same time as the Senate unless there is unanimous consent in the chamber?
[English]
Senator Joyal: I wish to follow up on the issue that Senator Nolin underlined.
[Translation]
The first argument made when that question comes up is that there would be no one left in the chamber.
[English]
Everyone will be on the committee, and then we have a motion to broadcast the Senate Chamber. We would broadcast a minimum of quorum, and that is it. As I have said, we must be consequential.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I did not want to begin the discussion right away, but my colleague's argument is the key one, of course. I feel that it is why we have a rule that prevents us from sitting in committee at the same time as the chamber is sitting.
That said, if the other place is able to organize itself in that way, I do not see, given the study we are now undertaking, why it would not be appropriate to consider how we could satisfactorily accommodate both needs.
[English]
The Chair: That is an excellent point. In the House of Commons, if you watch when they are having a debate, the camera zones right in and never pans around the chamber. It focuses in on the speaker.
Senator Joyal: On the same issue, maybe we should look into the other upper chambers to see what sort of rules they have when they have a smaller number of members. For example, the American Senate has only 100 senators. A senator can do only so many things, and besides that, they have to campaign. Some of them have to be in their own district or state to do their political work.
It might be an idea to look into how the other upper houses operate in relation to sessions of committee held at the same time when the upper house is sitting. It might be a way to help Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: I am raising the issue that we should conduct a thorough examination of that rule. We might come up with the conclusion that the status quo is best, but we should take a look at it.
The Chair: That might be an answer to Senator Andreychuk's concern.
Senator Nolin: That is exactly why I raised the question; it is a matter of fairness.
Senator Joyal: I want to follow up on Senator Keon's point and also address what Senator Smith and Senator Andreychuk have been raising. The best asset of our committee system is the institutional memory. We have as a tradition a commitment of senators to serve on a committee during a much lengthier period than the other place. To me, that is a fundamental asset of the committee system. We can rely on a certain number of senators who have been members of a committee for a certain period of time, and they provide further input through their expertise. That is an objective that we should maintain in any restructuring or readjustment of the committee system; it is fundamental.
That does not mean that the system should not have a capacity to renew itself. There is no doubt about that. When we have 20 new senators, there is no doubt that they must be integrated. We rely on that input to add to the human resource capacity.
However, it is important that we link that aspect of the committees' nature to the issue raised by Senator Smith in relation to a review of legislation that has been started. Because we are in a political life such that the mandate of the House of Commons seems to be on shorter terms, we do not have time to complete our studies or review of legislation before we start anew again.
For instance, on the anti-terrorist legislation, I would not risk a percentage of work done there. Senator Smith might be in a better position to do it. We were not that far from completing our work. There, everything stood still for months and months, which I think does not help the reputation of the institution. That is, all the external experts who have read our review studies of the anti-terrorist legislation have commended the Senate work.
It is in our interest to maintain that capacity to complete studies or reviews of legislation that have been initiated and not reassess everything from the beginning and lose months and months of procrastination just because the political situation in the other place has changed and we are in a limbo period for X number of months. As a matter of fact, if we would have continued that work in an appropriate fashion, we would have completed it by today.
Senator Smith: Absolutely.
Senator Joyal: We still do not know, and it is close to June. You are a seasoned senator; you know what will happen. I feel that does not serve the institution.
If we are to review the structure, we should maintain the assets that this institution has, which is the institutional memories of the committee, the continuity of membership and the capacity of the institution to provide reports that are useful and that serve the purpose of the institution, which is a review chamber and a chamber that has a capacity to go deeper into the studies of issues. That seems to be a key element of the review, and it meets the objective of Senators Smith and Andreychuk at the same time. Any review of the structure of committees and the membership of committees should keep that in mind in my opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I do not want to repeat everything that has been said, which all has a lot of merit. Perhaps if we started by looking at the mandates of the committees as they are set out in the Rules of the Senate, we might see that, at times, instead of having a committee like the one we are talking about, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, there should perhaps be two committees. With the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, there could be two committees as well. And for the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which deals with health, Aboriginal affairs, pensions and housing, perhaps, there again, we could establish more than just one committee for all that work.
All the more so because, when committees submit their mandates to the Chamber — after all, the Rules of the Senate require each committee to present its mandate to the chamber — the mandates are rarely discussed. It happens at the end of the day, during the motions, the chair of the committee moves the motion written down for him, a vote is taken, and everything happens very quickly with no discussion and without even considering whether what is presented to the Senate conforms to the rules.
I think that we could definitely start there. There is also the way in which committees hear witnesses. For public hearings, no problem, because we have parliamentary immunity; people who come to testify are protected. I perhaps see problems with the other way of gathering information, what we call fact-finding. We should discuss that. No information gathered by fact-finding should find its way into a report submitted to the Senate because most of the time we have no access to transcription for those fact-finding missions. I think this is something we should look at closely.
Turning to committee reports, some are debated in the Senate and others are not. We need to set up and pass a process whereby, when committee reports are tabled, committees have a certain number of days to study the contents. For some committees at the moment, members are able to have discussions, whereas, for other committees, the opportunities for discussion are perhaps less.
There is also the question of the point at which a committee report becomes a Senate report. In a number of cases, the majority of cases, reports are never accepted; but they are considered reports of the Senate although no motion is introduced to adopt them.
At times, when a report is submitted to the clerk, it can even be published and copies sent to senators who are away on the weekend. All of a sudden, we hear in the media that the Senate has issued another report and we hear the conclusions too. Perhaps people do not have a problem with that, but I still feel that there should be a better way of presenting committee reports.
[English]
The Chair: On that point, do they not need authority from the Senate before a Senate report can be released?
Senator Robichaud: Yes, they do need authority, but that authority is usually given without any debate as to why.
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes, and at 4:30 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I see another problem and it has to do with legislation. When committees receive legislation, they have a certain amount of time in which to produce their reports. This often limits the time they have to receive comments and to arrange for experts to appear.
This routinely happens with bills dealing with national finances. Everything is always done at the last minute; often, it has to be done before the end of the session. The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance must have more opportunity to do its work because it always has to do things in a limited amount of time.
As for the matter of Mondays and Fridays, if we opened up those two days, there would be no need to increase the number of committees or the number of senators who sit on them. Mondays and Fridays are traditionally set aside for senators to travel to and from their home provinces.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology sit on Mondays because it has not been possible to find time on the other days of the week. Those committees were created on condition that they sit on Mondays.
When I was on the Committee on Official Languages, it was more difficult to find members who wanted to sit on committees on Mondays because it meant that they had to leave home a day earlier in order to attend. That certainly limits the number of members available for those committees. That may also put an additional load on those who live closer to Ottawa.
That is a factor to consider; perhaps if it were possible for committees to sit at the same time as the Senate all week, it might well make Mondays and Fridays easier for senators. Then we would have to look at the question of how many people would be present in the Senate.
Of course, we would also have to look at the resources available and that will surely be done later. Everything will depend on how we want to proceed, by either increasing or decreasing the number of committees and their loads.
[English]
The Chair: That is a good point. Are there other questions or comments? Senator MacDonald, you are a new senator. Do you have some observations to make?
Senator MacDonald: I am filling in here today for Senator Duffy. I am interested in the structure of the committee system. I am new to it, but as for the things that strike me with the numbers and the structure of the committee system, I look for areas of interest that I do not see reflected in the committee system. I see certain committees that seem to be a hybrid of some very strange mixtures of areas that do not seem to go together very well.
You mentioned the last time this system was restructured was 1968. That seems to be an awfully long time between reviews of the structure and what areas are priorities for the Senate to be looking at.
I think change is good. I would encourage all senators, even though I am only here one day on this committee, to be open to change in terms of redoing the committee system, how committees are put together in terms of the areas of interest.
When an area of interest is important to you personally, you tend to not want to let go of it. I think the committees have to be broad. There are so many areas of interest. For example, I am on the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My understanding is that it used to be part of Agriculture and Forestry; in the late 1980s when there was turmoil in the fishery industry, my understanding is that it was broken off and put into a separate committee. With a committee such as this, the only people who want to be on it are from British Columbia and the Maritimes. There are probably a few other similar cases of committees where many senators have no basic interest in them. I think that is wrong. The committee system should encourage participation, and we all should be encouraged to participate in an area that is not necessarily something of immediate interest to us.
The committee itself should be structured in such a way that it is broad, and I know the House of Commons committee structure does not exactly reflect ours, but we should have the ability within our structure to examine almost any issue and feel that it is identifiable to examine within those committees.
I would encourage, as a rule, that the committees be broad, that they try to encompass all areas of interest for all members of Parliament. Some of the committees are very narrow and discourage participation by all senators. Perhaps some of these narrow committees should be folded back into a broader committee.
Those are just the observations of a new senator. Again, I am not a permanent member of this committee, but I would encourage senators to look at it from that point of view.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In his first comment, Senator Nolin mentioned the possibility of either eliminating or increasing the salary for committee chairs and deputy chairs. Personally I think we should eliminate it.
We should look at available resources. I think that we should seriously examine how the chairs and deputy chairs of committees are elected. At the moment, we convince ourselves that there is an election, but the choice is made by the leadership. We always say that our committees are independent and that they do very fine work, but when the chairs and deputy chairs are elected, that independence goes by the board. I do not want to be the chair of a committee, Mr. Chair.
Senator Losier-Cool: Salary or no salary.
Senator Robichaud: Salary or no salary.
[English]
The Chair: That is the type of issue, Senator Nolin, that might be considered in the proposed committee of internal economy and rules.
Are there other questions and comments on committees?
Senator Smith: No, I am soaking it all up. It is good to hear where people's thoughts are, and it sounds as though most people are pretty open-minded. No one is talking radical, dramatic changes.
Senator MacDonald: Obviously, any changes are incumbent upon the resources available to the Senate in terms of support staff and things of that nature. My understanding is that for the present committee structure, there are not really many more resources to tap into in terms of space and staff support. Is there some sort of a ballpark figure of the maximum number of committees the Senate could support?
The Chair: We are thinking about perhaps having Heather Lank come and give us that information. However, you are quite correct. If the Senate were to let committees sit while the Senate is sitting, clerical staff have to be around the table. Some of those clerical staff sometimes staff committees, so it would be putting much pressure on the administrative resources for a committee.
Let us say that three more committees sat on Wednesday afternoons starting at 1:30 p.m. while the Senate was sitting. I do not know where the resource staff would come from in order to do it. I do not know where the committee rooms would come from.
Senator Losier-Cool: We will get it from the salary of this chair.
Senator Smith: While we are on that subject, astronomical disparity exists with the budgets of committees. One committee comes to mind, which I will not mention because I do not want to single it out.
Senator Joyal: We all know it.
Senator Smith: The dollar numbers are just out of proportion, and the number of aides and assistants that travel on that committee. Some sort of envelope is needed that recognizes that there are certain subject areas where some travelling and witnesses and such things are necessary. However, a little more balance is something that should be on our minds. I am trying to be fair here.
The Chair: In one sense, that is probably more of an issue for the Internal Economy Committee than a Rules Committee because Internal Economy is the committee that actually does fix and approve the budgets for committee travel and other work.
Senator Smith: Right. However, I think we have a mandate to say what we feel, and it is part of the picture.
Senator Losier-Cool: That is fairness.
Senator Andreychuk: The money is certainly a area for the Internal Economy Committee. However, if we are to study committees, it comes down to this issue of fairness. I was told, a long time ago as a lawyer, that if you are given enough resources and enough time, anyone could draft a lease. The fact is that we all have to work within defined resources. Therefore, those resources should be equally or at least somewhat equally apportioned amongst committees. How many contract staff and how many clerks a committee can have is very important.
I came in understanding that you just had a clerk, no assistant clerks, nothing, and all of a sudden these capacities came from somewhere. I noticed some committees had one and two clerks and an assistant clerk, et cetera, and other committees had only one person. Some of that is for us to study.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The resources available to committees depend on the mandate and the workload that each committee has set for itself.
Once a committee decides on its activities and subsequently its budget, the funds it needs to accomplish all the activities for the year, it works strictly within its mandate.
I sit on the Internal Economy Committee, as does Senator MacDonald, and several others among you. Internal Economy now has a subcommittee that examines committee budgets. We have to go by the mandate, by what is approved by the committee, because the committee as a whole approves the budget and it is difficult for us to question the judgment of the people on the committee.
We will question whether they need all the consultants, whether they have sufficient funds for communications and how they are going to use them; we will look at the history a little. You say that some committees receive more funds; that is true in some cases, depending on the mission it has to fulfill.
Committees that sit and hear witnesses in Ottawa have very few expenses, and they can come from the overall budget for committees. Those that travel to other provinces, or out of the country, need many more resources and that also depends on the mission they have been given.
The Fisheries Committee never used to travel and suddenly, it does. So they have to have the resources to do so. It was the same for the Agriculture Committee and for Social Affairs; they conducted a number of studies. So they needed resources. In the overall budget for committees, I do not know if all the financial resources have been used.
Senator Nolin: Last year?
Senator Robichaud: Definitely not last year, because of the prorogation. Nor the previous year. The problem is with the human resources, and that is a whole other matter.
[English]
Senator Joyal: The issue, of course, is not essentially in our terms of reference. It is more for Internal Economy. However, as background, it might be helpful if we could get a report that would be a complement to the study that has been provided to us on the orders of reference made during the Thirty-ninth Parliament. There are all the bills or issues that have been referred to the various committees. Maybe as a complement to that we could have the budget that was allocated by Internal Economy to those committees and the amount that has been used so that we have a complementary picture of the issue that Senator Robichaud has raised. That would be helpful.
I do not follow the budgets of other committees, other than the one I am on, which is the Legal Committee, one of the most frugal committees but with the largest number of bills and issues. It would be helpful to have that for us to have a complete picture of the situation.
Senator Andreychuk: When I came to the Senate, we would just have a motion saying that we wanted to study something, and the Senate would pass it. Then the committee would say, "Oh, but you passed the motion, and we will need X number of resources to deliver it. After all, you agreed to it." Internal Economy came down to the point where it was approved almost in principle, but then the next step was to have a budget approved before you could proceed, which limits the study in a focused way to match the resources. We still have a long way to go to make it an accountable process, and part of the mandate would be in this committee and part of it would be in Internal Economy. That is for another day.
The Chair: I thank everyone for the excellent input they have made on this subject. The steering committee will be meeting this afternoon on some matters, and it will take into consideration all of the excellent points made by all honourable senators. We will try to somehow synthesize it down to some key and main points and proceed from there to bring in the appropriate witnesses. Certainly we will be doing the questionnaire suggested first by Senator Joyal, added to by Senator Andreychuk saying that the questionnaire should be sent to all honourable senators for their responses.
(The committee adjourned.)