Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 9 - Evidence, June 2, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:37 a.m. to 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 H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are continuing our study of the Senate committee system. Based on requests from two chairs in response to our questionnaire, the committee agreed to extend an invitation to those chairs who are not members of this committee to appear and raise issues they feel are pertinent to our study.
Today, we will first hear from our colleague, Senator Colin Kenny, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Following Senator Kenny, at or about 10:30, we will hear from Senator Sharon Carstairs, Chair of the Special Committee on Aging, which recently completed its work, and Senator Terry Stratton, Chair of the Committee of Selection.
As you are aware, we have extended the deadline for replies to the questionnaire until June 10 at 5 p.m. The mandate of our study on the committees is known to everyone, so I will not repeat it now.
I welcome Senator Kenny to our committee today. You now have the floor. I understand you will make a brief opening presentation and, following that, honourable senators will probably have some questions.
Hon. Colin Kenny, Senator, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for inviting me to address you. I intend to go through my opening remarks fairly swiftly. I have 10 recommendations for general rules, two for steering committee, five for staff, four for facilities —
Senator Fraser: Do you have copies?
Senator Kenny: Unfortunately not, but I can arrange for copies.
Senator Fraser: Could we ask the witness to arrange for copies of his presentation?
Senator Kenny: Happily.
The Chair: Do you have something that could be photocopied now in French and English?
Senator Kenny: I do not. That is my dilemma right now.
The Chair: Do you have an extra copy of the English with you now?
Senator Kenny: No, sir, I do not. I apologize.
The Chair: Perhaps at the conclusion you can make it available to the table so they can have it translated and circulated.
Senator Kenny: I will.
The Chair: I would also ask that you not speak quickly, if you have a long list. Some of us want to make notes. I will not cut you off, but speak slowly enough that we can make notes.
Senator Kenny: I will. The last thing I will do is comment on a portion of Ms. L'Heureux's testimony to this committee last week.
In terms of general recommendations, I would propose that this committee consider a block selection process when senators are choosing committees. By that, I am suggesting that a series be established of blocks of committees that meet at the same time, for example, the Tuesday morning time slot from 8:30 until 10:30, or whenever it goes. A number of committees meet during that time block. I am suggesting that senators may only pick one committee that meets in that time block. The same would hold true for the next time block that goes from 10:30 until noon.
The Chair: Is that not what happens now?
Senator Kenny: No. Some senators find themselves on more than one committee that meets at the same time and, as a consequence, their best attendance can be 50 per cent on each committee. Essentially, I am saying that it should be a rule that you cannot sit on two committees that sit at the same time.
The Chair: Do you have a chart with the blocks on it?
Senator Kenny: No, Mr. Chair, but I could prepare one and give it to the committee on short order. That would be my first recommendation.
My second recommendation would be to permit committees to meet during adjournments if a majority of the committee so wishes. Right now, one is required to request permission from the chamber. That happens at the beginning of an adjournment, and events may come up during the course of the adjournment that are relevant to the committee's mandate, and there is no opportunity for the committee to address those.
Third, I would recommend generally reducing the size of committees and increasing the time for them to sit. I say that because, on the committee that I serve on, we have chosen to have 90-minute takes with witnesses. We have found that with a committee of nine, in an hour and a half, you have an opportunity for almost all members to participate, and you have a more thorough exposition of the witnesses' views. I recommend that approach as being one that generally be followed.
The Chair: Are you saying all committees should have nine members and all committees should meet for an hour and a half?
Senator Kenny: No. Ultimately I will get to the point, chair, where I will suggest that the size of the committees vary according to the interest that senators have in the committees. There is the classic example of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans one year when only six members wanted to sit on it, and yet the Committee of Selection picked 12 senators. Clearly, six senators were going someplace several times a week that they did not want to go, and one would look at that committee and say it is not a very interesting committee because it has only 50 per cent attendance, but the six people who were interested in fisheries were attending, and I think that is an appropriate way for it to be. You can have a terrific committee with six senators. I am suggesting that the Rules Committee consider varying the size of committees from session to session so that it adjusts to the interests of members and allows them to participate in varying ways. I am trying to say there is no magic size, and committees should be driven by the interest of senators.
My fourth point is that committees be allowed to sit while the chamber is sitting on a regularly scheduled basis. This is how I would create more time for committees. I would not suggest that every committee can meet simultaneously, because you would have no one in the chamber, but I would say that on certain days, certain committees could meet, rotating through the schedule, which would allow an increase in committee time.
Connected with that, I would also suggest that the concept of delayed or scheduled votes be considered, because if you have committees out meeting, it is better to have the votes held at a known time so that the committees that are meeting can rise and attend the votes. Likewise, you could defer committee votes in the same way. I am suggesting that we manage our affairs a little bit differently in order to allow more senators to actually be working rather than simply sitting in the chamber listening to a speech that may or may not be relevant to their work.
My sixth recommendation is that there be a fast-track start-up for committees after dissolution and prorogation. I am talking about two or three weeks for them to get going instead of two or three months. I had a situation once where the Senate came back on September 30 and it was not until December 10 that we had an order of reference and a budget and were able to function. We spend an inordinate amount of time going through the process of getting geared up to function as an organization. That has been particularly true for the last several years, with minority governments and prorogations and dissolutions. We have spent a lot of time not functioning as a Senate because our committees have not had the proper authority to do that.
My seventh recommendation is that the guiding philosophy for funding committees should be value for money. I think that each committee asking for funds from the Senate should be asked to demonstrate what value the taxpayers will get from the work the committee proposes to do. Can you point out some piece of legislation that you would like created or changed? Can you point out some policy that you are pursuing? Can you demonstrate that the work you are doing has some direct consequence on Canadians and make that link? I actually think that is done, but I do not think we talk about it. To be able to reinforce that concept and have committees talking about why they have a budget and what they are trying to accomplish with that budget will be very salutary in terms of people's perspective of the Senate.
My eighth point deals with the replacement of a chair. Right now, a chair who is unavailable for a meeting for any reason cannot be replaced.
The Chair: We are aware of that.
Senator Andreychuk: If the chair is not there, the deputy chair can take the chair, but another member cannot. The deputy chair can.
Senator Kenny: That is correct, but the balance of the committees' membership changes. That is where the problem lies. This is particularly true where you have committees that have a plurality of just one. That is of consequence to the Senate, and I am suggesting that the chair can be replaced; the deputy chair goes into the chair's role, but another person from the side of the chair should be added to the committee. Right now when you make that request, the answer is, "No, you are irreplaceable.'' I do not think that is or should be true.
Recommendation No. 9 is to give the good media times to policy committees. With due respect, this is not a policy committee in terms of public policy. It is a vital committee for the functioning of the Senate, but it is not a committee that you necessarily want media coverage for, and yet Rules sits in a prime media time. This is the best time of the week to get media coverage. Today, Tuesday, as we speak, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. is the best shot of getting coverage that anyone has. I mentioned Fisheries before. I would argue that this would be a terrific time for the Fisheries Committee. If they have a fisheries policy, they have a good crack at getting coverage now.
The Chair: Why is that? What is so special about now?
Senator Kenny: There is a magic time somewhere around 3:30 or 4 p.m. when the press gallery is totally preoccupied with the other place. They are filing the theatrics of Question Period; they are running up against their deadline. There have been huge cuts to the gallery, and there are more coming, where fewer and fewer reporters are available, and they are filing their material as early in the day as they can so that they know they have something in the can that covers them; and then if something else comes along by 3 p.m., they can cover that. However, if a committee sits at 5 p.m. or later — for example, Senator Duffy's show was on live at that point. You had no chance of making his show because, if you are sitting in the late afternoon or evening, you are tied up in your committee and he is on live. The same is true with Don Newman on CBC.
Senator Duffy: Even if the media wanted you.
Senator Kenny: Even if they wanted, they would not get a chance to be on.
Senator Duffy: Because your responsibility is first to be here.
Senator Kenny: To be here with the committee.
Senator Duffy: Good point.
Senator Kenny: We could change the way we have what I would call our managerial or oversight committees — Rules, Internal Economy Committee, there may be one or two others — scheduled. They should move into times that do not pick up much media.
We sit, for example, on Mondays until seven o'clock or eight o'clock at night. There is zero possibility of anyone ever covering that. Mondays are a problem because people are flying in, and you have to take that into account.
Essentially, I think we should be more media savvy and recognize that there are fewer and fewer reporters around to cover what is happening, and they have deadlines that are very real. Canadian Press is not paying overtime. If you call their shop at 5:01, no one answers. That is just a fact of life in the media these days. I think that is worth some consideration.
Steering committees.
The Chair: Is that recommendation 10?
Senator Kenny: This is No. 11, Mr Chair.
Senator Fraser: What was No. 10?
Senator Kenny: Moving non-policy committees to 5 p.m. or later. There was actually a typo in my notes. It was a good reason I did not circulate them, but recommendations No. 9 and No. 10 are the same point.
Right now in steering committees you need a quorum of three, and that is the entire steering committee. That means one person not attending can block the steering committee. If someone does not like what the Senate or the committee is doing, the absence of one person can shut down a committee, and I think that should be considered by this committee. Elsewhere we have taken into account the fact that, while it is good politics and good practice, for example, to wait until you have at least one member from the other side present when a full committee is sitting, if the committee comes to the view that a boycott is happening, you cannot have the work of the committee come to a stop, and, therefore, a committee can sit with a quorum of five. A steering committee has a quorum of three, and one person can effectively shut it down by not attending the meeting.
I would also suggest that having steering committee meetings by phone or email is just as effective as in person. They are generally managerial things, and for people to be able to communicate rapidly that way would expedite the work of a committee rather than having to wait until everyone is back in town on Tuesday.
Senator Fraser: Steering committee meetings?
Senator Kenny: Steering committee meetings only.
Senator Fraser: I have done that. You can do that now, if the clerk and everyone are online.
Senator Andreychuk: If all the members agree.
Senator Kenny: If all the members agree, and that is the key point. If all the members do not agree, you cannot do it. More than that, the way some clerks interpret it, not only do all the members have to agree to meet but they have to agree on the outcome of the meeting. How do you predict that in advance?
My next point relates to staff. There was a question regarding staff for chairs in your questionnaire. I thought that was a very productive one and would be useful going with chairs.
There should be recognition also that the burden of chairs frequently carries on past the time of the functioning of the committee. The public does not know when we prorogue. It simply does not know. The questions and demands still go to committee chairs after that.
The Chair: Committees cease to function in prorogation, so the committee is functus.
Senator Kenny: I understand that.
The Chair: With the exception of Internal Economy and Conflict.
Senator Kenny: I understand that. You and everyone in this room know that, but the public does not know that. The public continues with demands and requests because they read somewhere in the paper that you are the person to go to if there is a problem.
The Chair: But that person does not exist; the committee does not exist; it is functus.
Senator Kenny: As a public servant, if your answer is, "I am sorry; the committee is functus; I cannot help you with that problem; I cannot deal with that issue,'' then the committee or the Senate or the individual looks like hell. You have to deal with the problems that come to you as a senator. In this case, it is a problem that is coming to you because of your service previously over the last six months or last two years chairing a committee. You become the face of that committee and the demands keep coming.
I am trying to describe a political reality that the rules do not contemplate. You may not have a solution or you may not want to have a solution, but it does not alter the fact that, if you ask, chairs will find that people who have an interest in the work they have been doing still come to them afterwards and put demands on them.
The Chair: You began this section by saying staff was in the questionnaire and it was good and you said staff for chairs. What is your recommendation?
Senator Kenny: That there be staff for chairs.
The Chair: What staff?
Senator Kenny: I have not defined it, but that there be staff assistance with, for example, correspondence, with writing speeches. I am talking about one person. My suggestion is that they stay on until a month into the next session or into the next Parliament, and I will come back to that when I deal with committee staff.
I believe there should be a budget for permanent contract staff with expertise in the order of reference. We have found, as some other committees have found, that the library does not have people with expertise in the areas we are looking into. It came as quite a shock to me, after spending a decade on the Banking Committee, where if we were having trouble getting advice we could go to Bay Street or Wall Street and get all sorts of advice from very expert people there. We were not dependent on the Deputy Minister of Finance or the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We could get just as smart and knowledgeable people elsewhere.
However, if you are dealing in some areas, that alternate source of advice is not there. For example, in the intelligence community, regarding the military or the border services, there is not a second place you can go for an opinion, so you are severely challenged.
I might add even retired people tend to get sucked up very quickly. The government has a habit of hiring people on contract, and so many are getting hired that I am beginning to wonder whether it is not a plan. It is amazing, when you are looking for advice to complement or counter what the commander of the army is saying to you, and you discover that the last commander of the army has a job in Colorado Springs, and the commander of the army before that has a job in the Congo, and the commander of the army before that is doing some work in Quebec City, and you say, holy smokes, that goes back a decade and all of these people are off the market. It is a challenge.
They should be permanent. Again, it may not be a rule, but I am drawing to your attention that there should be permanent and contract staff for communications. We have a dysfunctional communications operation in the Senate.
There is no point in writing the best reports in the world — and frankly some Senate reports are the best in the world — if no one knows they have happened. We are penny-wise and pound foolish if we do not have experts on each committee on a permanent basis. When I say permanent, I am talking about lasting through the duration of a prorogation or dissolution. In other words, we are losing good people because we are only providing them with employment while the Senate exists.
Only one committee protects its intellectual support, and that is the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. They have found a way to protect the lawyers who are very skilled, and they stay on from one session to another, from one Parliament to another. I think they are housed in the library for that period of time.
However, right now, at every dissolution and at every prorogation, we give our staff two weeks' pay and their walking papers and we hope that three months later, or in some cases seven months later, they will be hanging around and available to come back and work for us. These are people who develop a terrific institutional memory and provide a valuable service. I am not suggesting they be imposed on a new committee.
The Chair: What staff are you giving two weeks' pay to? Are you talking about Library of Parliament or clerks? What people are you referring to?
Senator Kenny: Contract staff who work for a committee.
The Chair: Contract staff.
Senator Kenny: It is a standard clause in every Senate contract that you get two weeks' notice. They can quit on two weeks' notice and you can terminate them on two weeks' notice.
I am suggesting that, where you have contract staff, their contract carry on until the first month of the next session or the next Parliament, and the new committee then decides whether they want to keep them or not, but that they not be lost to the Senate. Right now we run a risk of losing them because no one can go seven months without finding some other form of work.
The Chair: You began this section with communications. You said that the Senate communications is dysfunctional. What does that mean?
Senator Kenny: That means that we do not have people who demonstrate an expertise in taking the committee's message and communicating it to the press gallery. They do not have the contacts or the skills that a good communications officer needs.
I can give you person A, working for the Senate, who will put out a media advisory listing just the names of who will appear at the next meeting of a committee. I can give you person B, who will describe what is happening at the next meeting in an interesting fashion, be knowledgeable about what is of interest to different reporters, get on the phone and talk to those reporters and say, look, be sure you set aside time next Tuesday at 10:30 because we will have a really interesting witness talking about X, Y or Z that you will find really good on your show, and have a chat.
I feel silly, sitting here with Senator Duffy in the audience, because he knows a lot about this and I know very little. He will tell you that regularly on his show good communications people would call him up and put a bee in his ear saying, "Duff, something interesting is going to happen over in this committee tomorrow and you might want to keep an eye on it because it might be terrific on your show.''
That is what a good communications person has the ability to do. They know the gallery, they understand their needs and they translate the work of the committee into a package that can be used by the media covering us. I think we should pay more attention to it, and we should hire people.
The Chair: I understand the point now.
Senator Kenny: I mentioned protecting staff through prorogation, and it is the long pauses that are key.
My next point is facilities. We need to increase the number of committee rooms that have the capacity for television. We have had that increase; Mr. Armitage got another room for this year. That is terrific, but we need to be at a point where, any time a committee is meeting, we should have cameras in the room and we should be recording it.
If you take a look around this room now and subtract staff, there is not a whole lot of general public here. Hansard is not the way to communicate with the public. When a meeting like this is on television, you have somewhere between 10 and 70,000 people joining you at the committee meeting. If the Senate wants to appear to be working, you have product going, on a regular basis, out to CPAC and elsewhere.
I get a lot of feedback about the work that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence does. A typical reaction is, "I do not know what you, do but I know you are doing something up there.''
When people see senators meeting like this, the impression is that we are working. In fact, everyone is working in this room, but no one is getting credit for the work. That is one reason the Senate gets into disrepute, because it appears to too many people that we are not in fact working. They do not know what we do.
In fact, there is a widely held belief that we work only in the chamber. That simply is not true. Unless more steps are taken to communicate the sort of work that goes on in committees, I think we will continue to suffer the bum rap of being lazy.
The Chair: Senator, we want to have some time for questions. Do you want to do your next few points so we can open it up for questions?
Senator Kenny: I will do them quickly.
I would argue for an increase of committee rooms. I would start in the East Block and I would ultimately have an objective, over the next decade, of a committee room for each committee.
I would provide for media training for senators. That happens from time to time. However, the way it works, interestingly enough, is there is no school for senators on how to be senators. There is no instruction for senators on how to function at a committee.
An interesting thing about media training for committees is that it teaches senators how to ask short, snappy questions and then let the expert give the answer. We still have colleagues who give five minute speeches and then say, "Do you agree?'' That is lousy television and, with respect, a lousy way to have a committee. The best committees have short questions and they get the experts to give long answers. That is why I am in favour of media training. It makes for better television and better governance.
Obviously, we will need more rooms for translation, interpretation, reporters, such as we have here, and television facilities.
Briefly, if I may, Mr. Chair, I would draw your attention to the blues that I got when Madam L'Heureux appeared before you from the library. She discussed a memorandum of understanding that they have on a trial basis with the House of Commons. The library has an agreement with the House of Commons committees' directorate to bring clarity to the relationship between consultants and committees, and the MOU has the committee paying for the consultant out of its budget, but the responsibility for selecting the consultant and reviewing the material is the library's.
They have it exactly backwards. The library should pay for the consultant. The consultant should be selected by the committee and the committee should decide who reviews the work.
I hope that before this committee moves forward on the suggestion of Madam L'Heureux, there will be an opportunity to thoroughly ventilate her proposal, because I do not think it is a good one. It is exactly the wrong way to go.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Kenny. You have raised a number of points and there will be a number of questions. I would like to begin by asking you about having committees meet when the Senate is meeting in chamber. Very often there are important debates in the chamber and a number of senators would like to be there to participate in the debate or to at least hear some of the important debate that is going on relating to matters of great public importance.
Where would you draw the line of the responsibility for a senator between appearing and attending in the chamber, which is a senator's responsibility, and going to a committee meeting, if committees were meeting at the time that the Senate was sitting?
Senator Kenny: I am suggesting,Mr. Chair, that perhaps it would start with one or two committees; on a Tuesday, one or two, on a Wednesday, one or two.
The Chair: With one, two or five committees, if there is an important debate going on that a senator would like to participate in the chamber, where do you draw the line?
Senator Kenny: I think the line right now is drawn fairly clearly, and it is very difficult for committees to meet while the chamber is operating. When there is an urgent piece of legislation, the chamber normally grants permission, but it does not grant permission on an ongoing basis.
I think you could come up with a number of systems, including having committees request, having committees bid for it, but to enshrine the possibility that you can meet. I note the House of Commons has committees meeting while interesting debates are going on in the chamber and they get a great deal of their work done during that time period.
We, on the other hand, tend to restrict the amount of time committees work, and yet we talk about committees being the Crown jewel of the Senate. Most committees are stuck by not having enough time.
The Chair: I have one more question. You made a comment about the staff of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and you said that they are in the Library of Parliament but they have a good system. What system do they have for researchers of the Library of Parliament that other Senate committees do not have? I do not follow that.
Senator Kenny: I am not an expert; I would turn to Mr. Armitage, perhaps, but my understanding is they are protected because their pay cheques continue out of the library's funds during a prorogation or dissolution.
The Chair: Do not all members who do research for Senate committees work at the Library of Parliament? What is unique about the scrutiny of regulations?
Senator Kenny: They do not work for the Library of Parliament, they work for the committee. They are not employees of the library.
Senator Nolin: I think the answer to that is that there are ongoing files with various departments because those regulations are issued by departments, and some files are open for more than 15 years. Legal staff are needed to follow all those files and the exchange of letters and communication with the various departments, and it cannot stop at the end of a session. It is a follow through, an open job. That is how it operates. That is why they have specific legal personnel to do that.
Senator Andreychuk: Also, on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, the mandate is that Parliament must scrutinize regulations. It is in the law, so there is not much selectivity by chairs or committees as to the workload. It comes automatically and it is continuous. It does not matter what party is in, or how many parties, so it is unique.
Senator Kenny, I could ask you many questions, but it seems to me you are gearing everything in the Senate towards somehow being a visible product, visible to the public in some media way. Is it your fundamental belief that we are here to somehow translate all our work for media consumption so that we will be visible? You even used a phrase that I found rather troubling; you said that if the Senate is to appear to be working, we should do A, B and C. Is that part of your philosophy that drives a lot of your recommendations?
Senator Kenny: About a decade ago I chaired the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and for our first two meetings we had no agenda and we went around the table and asked everyone to speak their heart as to what they thought they should be doing in the Senate. It was remarkable, because a number of members described in a very moving way how when they were appointed to the Senate their friends came up to them and said, "Congratulations, Jake, you deserve the rest. You have had a terrific career and now it is your turn to have time off.''
It was very striking and it has coloured my time in the Senate significantly. People felt you went to the Senate as a retirement, as a reward, and it was not seen as a vital, important career where you were a member of Parliament and you were shaping public policy.
I personally see senators as people who are here because they think we can improve the way Canadians are governed. A key way of doing that is communicating that to the public. There are a variety of ways of doing it; some people do it with newsletters, others with speeches and public meetings, but I would argue the most effective wave is the mass media. You cannot go door to door and explain to every Canadian, "Here is what we are doing, which we think will make Canada a better place.''
If I appear to focus on the media too much, Senator Andreychuk, it is only to shift us a little bit more in that direction. The Senate never makes radical turns. I am just trying to nudge things a little bit more towards taking advantage of the media, because that is how most Canadians get their information.
Senator Andreychuk: Just a subset of that, you say the media time should be given in preference to policy committees. I would disagree and say it should be given to legislative committees, because if we have significant legislation that is where the public should be engaged and that should be the moment that we engage with the public. You seem to think it is policy.
Senator Kenny: I have no trouble with your interpretation. I am suggesting not administrative committees.
Senator Andreychuk: Another point on contract staff: One reason I very much support the library is that we have been able to sell that we study issues objectively and we use a neutral base as our backup. The library has provided that. I think they are experienced, their reputation is not on the left or the right, Liberal, Conservative or NDP; it is research and it is neutral-based, and parliamentarians have spent a lot of time protecting that neutrality for them. However, when we get into contracts, then there is selectivity. My concern is that if we are to continue to be able to contract independently, then the rap on us is that we are selecting who we want, and that we almost always have a preconceived notion of how that product should look, should be written and should be dispensed, rather than doing an honest, unbiased piece of research.
The library needs to go outside of its own component when they do not have a particular expertise as opposed to a particular bend. On human rights, if my committee were to be composed of members only from the NGOs, it would not serve the cause of human rights because there are other Canadians, other institutions, other academics, et cetera. The library presents a focus where they try to balance all of these elements through their research. Contracts get a bad rap, namely, that they show one point of view, and generally from either the chair or from the committee. How do you respond to that?
Senator Kenny: First, I have a different perspective about the library. We have had difficulty getting anyone over the age of 30.
Senator Andreychuk: And that is bad? I am joking.
Senator Kenny: No, but, in terms of experience, we have had no one, for example, with the sort of background that is consistent with the subject matter that we are studying.
I would draw to everyone's attention the work that Senator Banks is doing right now vis-à-vis the library. The library took on extra duties when it received responsibility for international and interparliamentary affairs. That almost doubled the work of the library and that work came at the expense of staff available for committees.
The Chair: When did that take place?
Senator Kenny: About two or three years ago, but Mr. Armitage could be more precise. If you talk to Bill Young — and I recommend that you have him as a witness — he will explain to you that he got no increase in funds but he got virtually a doubling of his work to prepare the research for Canada-NATO, Canada-Europe, Canada-Japan, Canada- whatever. All of the preparation that you get when you travel to those places comes from the library, but he has had to provide it at the expense of the support he has given to committees.
The Chair: What is Senator Banks studying?
Senator Kenny: Senator Banks has been drawing this fact to my attention and to other senators' attention. It is important for you to know that that is why there is a limit on the resources available from the library. They are overstretched and overworked. They have gone to a new configuration in order to try to address that issue, but they clearly are not addressing it. They do not have enough people.
The Chair: Can I interrupt Senator Andreychuk at this time?
Senator Andreychuk: I would like to conclude, but Senator Kenny will be giving you a paper. Perhaps he could expand on what "value for money'' means as a test in your recommendation. That would be helpful.
Senator Fraser: I would certainly second that last point. "Value'' tends to lie in the eye of the beholder, I suspect.
Senator Kenny: It does, and it is up to the beholder to put that case forward. The public will judge whether or not there is value, but right now I do not believe that we are doing that.
Senator Fraser: I wanted to focus on your eighth recommendation regarding replacement of chairs when they must be absent. Have you given any thought to how we could go about doing this?
Senator Kenny: Yes. It would be to have the deputy chair take over the chair and to allow the addition of one more to the committee from the same side that the chair is on.
Senator Fraser: The difficulty is that, in order to do that, that person must then become a member of the committee and, in so doing, take the place as a member of the committee of the chair who is then no longer a member of the committee. Since you cannot be the chair of a committee unless you are a member of a committee, you automatically lose your chairmanship. That is how it has been explained to me, at any rate. Have you thought your way around that?
Something I have been turning around in my own mind and that you might comment on is the establishment of the category of supplementary members — that is, understudy members — one from each side, who would automatically come in but who would not replace the chair. We now have ex officio membership from the leadership as a separate category of membership. This might be a third category of membership. However, I do not know whether that would be feasible. Do you have any specific recommendations?
Senator Kenny: Regarding what you propose, we have an element of that. You will notice that when someone wants to go on a committee, they tend to go and hang around that committee a fair bit and then they become the logical person to go on the committee when someone drops off. If a new senator comes up and says, "I really want to be on a committee,'' usually the advice of an older senator is, "Go to the meetings, get to know the file and you will become part of it.'' It is almost a supplementary member without the name.
I think that it is within the prerogative of this committee to recommend to the Senate that for short absences, the chair would continue, but that the sides would be evened up. It is a situation that could arise with any chair at any time, whether they have a hospital visit or a family tragedy or whatever, where they simply cannot be there. I do not think the committee should be shut down. The deputy chair is appropriate to chair the committee. I am suggesting that we take into account that there may be circumstances where, for a meeting or two, the chair is not there and that he or she be deemed to carry on as chair when they return to the committee.
The Chair: We have three minutes to go and we have Senator Nolin and Senator Joyal. Could you keep the responses short, please, because our next two witnesses are here to begin in three minutes.
Senator Nolin: On the question of additional salary for chairs, I know the answer. We have a résumé of an aggregate of your answers, but we do not know your specific answers. If you had to choose between more salary and more budget funds, what would you choose?
Senator Kenny: Well, I need the money.
Senator Nolin: You do not need the money. If you had to choose between more salary and more budgets for the chair or deputy chair, what would you choose?
Senator Kenny: I would take more budgets as long as the House of Commons does, too. I do not think we should say that a chair in the House of Commons is worth $10,000 more than a chair in the Senate. That is my answer.
Senator Nolin: What is your view on the selection of committee chairs? Of course, we have the official protocol that is voted by committee, but we all know how it works. Do you have a view on that?
Senator Kenny: My sense is that it varies from one time to another. Without giving away caucus secrets, I have the impression that one of the parties, after the last session was set up, discovered that everyone who had expressed an interest in being on their first choice got their first choice of every committee and everyone who had expressed interest in being a chair or deputy chair got that, too. No one was left wishing to be a chair or a deputy chair.
I guess my answer is that it seems to be working okay at the moment. There may be times in the life of the Senate when it does not work that well, but we seem to have self-correcting mechanisms so that chairs that are not pleasing their membership or the Senate generally find themselves doing something else a year or so later. The system balances out, I believe.
Senator Joyal: I would like to come back to your seventh point, that the guiding philosophy for funds should be the value-for-money concept. The value-for-money concept is a concept that is applied by the Auditor General. It seems to me that it is a very relative concept.
For some committees the main agenda is legislation, like the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which deals with 80 per cent of the legislation that comes to the Senate. That is the prime function of the Senate according to the Constitution of Canada. It is to express consent and concurrence to legislation above and beyond everything else. That committee wrestles with an annual budget of about $50,000 a year, including food expenses.
Senator Kenny: I think they are for a terrific benefit.
Senator Joyal: Let us take the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism as an example, which must review very complex anti-terrorism legislation. It is a committee that does very good review, from objective experts outside of the Senate saying the report was better than the one from the House of Commons, to quote Professor Ken Roach as one of the experts. This committee operated with a very limited budget — I wonder if it was even $20,000 a year — and it sat for more than three years.
It seems to me that when you apply the principle of value for money, it is a relative concept in relation to what a committee could be expected to do on a yearly basis. Of course, one committee on the list might for one year receive a lot of legislation. Let us take the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples as an example. The government of the day might introduce many bills relating to Aboriginal Peoples and do a review of the Indian Act and other complex legislation. That committee might need an additional amount of money under a political or government agenda context.
It seems to me that the concept of value for money is an elusive one in relation to the main breadth of a committee. Perhaps in giving your notes additional thought, you could provide us additional comments as to how we could develop that concept in a way that would be fair for all committees.
Senator Kenny: I would be happy to. I think what I was trying to say was that when a committee receives funds, it should be very public about what it is trying to accomplish. If it is dealing with legislation, I think it should describe that and say that it will deal with four bills, and here is how they affect the lives of, in your example, Aboriginal Peoples, and this is why it is important that we receive that funding.
I do not hear that description going forward on a regular basis, and I think it would be a good thing for the Senate to do. I would be happy to try to expand.
Senator Joyal: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much for your remarks. You have raised much food for thought, and you will be presenting your paper and some background papers to the clerk of the committee to be circulated.
I would now like to call on Senator Carstairs and Senator Stratton. I welcome you both. We are looking forward to your views and comments. Following that, honourable senators will have some questions.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs, P.C., Senator, Senate of Canada: Thank you. I wanted to give you a bit of an historical perspective on an issue that is not new to the Senate, and that is how many committees we should have, why we have the committees that we have, et cetera.
For those of you who may not remember, from 1997 to 1999, I was the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate; and from 2001 to 2004, I was the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I was deputy leader to Senator Al Graham, and Senator Robichaud was my deputy leader.
At the same time, the positions on the other side were held by Senator Lynch-Staunton and Senator Kinsella.
A great deal of discussion around the number of committees, the size of committees and when the committees would meet took place during those years. Consensus was arrived at on only two issues. Two new committees were added with the agreement that they would sit on Mondays. In addition, we informally came to the consensus that if there were special committees, either independent of a standing committee or a special subcommittee of a standing committee, they too would meet on Monday.
This was the reason why the Aging Committee sat on Monday, and I was under the belief, frankly, that this would be the only way the committee would be allowed to be formed. The two new committees agreed to were National Security and Defence and Human Rights. Both had their champions, and the champions were in different caucuses, although support was found in both caucuses for both committees. Senator Kenny led the fight for National Security and Defence and Senator Andreychuk the fight for Human Rights.
Senator Lynch-Staunton wanted fewer committees. He could see the numbers decreasing in his caucus and wanted fewer committees so that they could be adequately staffed with senators. Unfortunately, we could not reach consensus despite the fact that some committees never had a great number of senators apply to sit on them.
I can only speak of the Liberal caucus, but I suspect things were not very different in the Conservative caucus. In the Liberal caucus, all senators were asked to provide the leadership with their top three choices. Senior senators almost always received their number one choice, followed by at least one other. Often, more junior senators had to settle for their second and third choices, and often the third committee on which all senators were asked to sit was not on their preferred list.
In the 1990s, the oversubscribed committees were always Banking and Foreign Affairs. When more women were appointed to the Senate, then Social Affairs became oversubscribed. This committee is truly a misnomer because, in my experience, the science and technology mandates of this committee have virtually been ignored, and studies on health, child care and poverty have dominated the agenda of the last 15 years.
The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament and the independent committees on Fisheries, Agriculture and Official Languages were often undersubscribed; yet there was no willingness on the part of senators to put Agriculture together with Fisheries. As some of you are aware, Official Languages was, until very recently, a joint committee, almost always predominantly attended by senators, but where the house chair would often act unilaterally, and this led to senators demanding their own committee. This is the reason this committee also sits on Monday. When it was a joint committee, it often sat while the Senate was sitting in deference to its being a joint committee.
In establishing the Liberal membership on committees, both regional and gender balance were important and were always taken into consideration. However, both in Fisheries and Energy, this was often difficult to achieve. It became easier in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources when the environment part of their mandate took on greater significance. However, consistently, Fisheries applications were from the Atlantic provinces or from British Columbia, with senators from other regions showing little interest.
I have often wondered why we could not achieve greater agreement on different numbers within each committee. There is nothing magical about the number 12 for most committees and 15 for Rules and the Internal Committee. If only four Liberal senators and three Conservative senators want to sit on Fisheries, why does the Committee of Selection not determine that this committee has a membership of seven?
Why should senators be asked to sit on a committee for which they have little or no interest? I believe in newly appointed senators grazing and trying out a number of committees before they settle on their choices. I also believe in adding new blood to committees, because committees can become stagnant. However, in my experience, assigning senators to committees that they do not want to sit on simply results in poor functioning with frequent absenteeism.
The Special Committee on Aging had seven members, and since we were doing an intensive study, I told senators they should not worry about replacing themselves on occasion when they were unable to attend. Because they had all chosen the committee and were dedicated to its work, absenteeism was rarely a problem.
The Defence Committee functions quite well with nine senators, although I understand that with the split of 5/4, this is causing some problems on voting. I think this could be clarified by making rules within the committee on when votes can be taken.
When I chaired the Legal Affairs Committee in the 1990s, we established a rule that no votes could be taken until the stage of clause by clause and senators had been notified that clause by clause was to take place. This might be more difficult on policy studies, but I think it is possible.
During my leadership I insisted that all independent members be given the opportunity to sit on at least one committee. Liberal numbers were high and it was agreed on both sides that the independent member would come from our side, thereby diminishing the government membership by one without impacting on the majority numbers on each committee. Often the splits were eight and four and seven and five with one independent.
This is more difficult in the present scenario, but the principle of independent members having at least one committee for which they are a voting member is I believe important.
Honourable senators, Senate committees are the lifeblood of this place. Senators enjoy their committee work and most work very hard at it. I believe we need to be more flexible about the size of membership and about agreement to special studies. As Senator Eyton said in his remarks last week, we should do even more of them.
I am prepared to take any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that excellent overview.
Senator Stratton is here not only as Chair of the Committee of Selection. He has also had tremendous experience in this place as a whip and a whip with responsibility for getting people to committees and so on. Senator Stratton, we are looking forward to your views and comments. You now have the floor.
Hon. Terry Stratton, Senator, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much for those nice remarks. It is not often I get a compliment as a whip, but I will take what I can get.
I think Senator Carstairs has succinctly summed up the situation. My concern fundamentally is that the system, however you want to look at it, works; it does work. I look at it from that standpoint. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, to use an old adage.
I go back in history to when we were, as Conservatives, down to 22. For example, I sat on six committees and others sat on six committees because we did not have any choice. Some sat on four, some on three. It was extremely difficult and hopefully we will never have to face that again.
In taking Senator Carstairs' comments to heart, look at the numbers on each committee, and I would reinforce, for example, that Conflict of Interest has five, and it works. On Mondays, Official Languages, Human Rights, and National Security and Defence each have nine. I would hate to see that grow to 12 if you kept those committees on Monday. Remember, the original agreement to form those committees was dependent on a Monday time slot. If we expanded them to 12 members, it would be extremely difficult to staff those committees because of the fact that they sit on Monday, which is essentially a travel day.
If you go for the idea of rotating committees, in other words giving Human Rights, National Security and Defence and Official Languages a chance or an opportunity to sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and/or Thursdays, then you will force other committees with 12 members to sit on Monday, and you will have a real problem then again with staffing those committees.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are faced with that fundamental problem and we will not be able to change it. If we agree to have committees sit on Mondays, then limit the number of members on that committee to their current number. Remember that the original mandate was for those committees to sit on Monday. Be careful about moving them, because that would cause, to me, undue problems.
Fundamentally, what should be addressed are the joint committees, for example, the Library of Parliament. I checked the rules this morning: 17 senators can sit on that committee, which is kind of archaic. I know that Senator Carstairs and I are on the Library of Parliament currently, and right now I think there are two Liberals and two Conservatives sitting on that committee to look at the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I think you need to look at the joint committees.
The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has eight senators, according to the rules. We have extreme difficulty with people turning out for those meetings, and I know Senator Eyton is a co-chair of that committee. I think we should look at the number of senators on that joint committee.
The most important thing I can reinforce is to talk to Heather Lank, which I am sure you will, who heads up, from the administration side, the committee structure. I would take her advice to heart and very seriously. I have not talked to Ms. Lank, but I know she has to live with whatever we impose.
You should deal with the numbers and deal with some of the mandates of the committees when you go into it. For example, Social Affairs has a mandate to study Indian and Inuit affairs when the Senate already has the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. We need to look at some of the mandates of the different committees.
When you are looking at meeting times — and I want to make reference to meeting times — Ms. Lank is the person to talk to there. Those are fixed because they work. They have been adjusted in a minor way to allow 15 minutes between committee meetings so that senators have a chance to run from one committee meeting to another should they have another meeting coming up. That is important.
This next comment comes from self-interest. Do not take the power away from the whip for allowing decisions that are currently there under their mandate. It is important that they maintain those, and they are there for a reason. To explain, currently, if a committee wants to change a meeting time, the rule we use is that if both sides of the committee agree to change the meeting time, then fine. If one side wants to change the time and the other side does not and there is a vote, then the whip has the right, on either side, to veto the decision to change the meeting times, because the conflict that inevitably results in the changing of the meeting time results in a conflict that plays out on both sides, which you do not really know about as a member of that specific committee.
As far as the Committee of Selection is concerned, if you do not want to deal with the numbers on committees, you can make a reference to the Committee of Selection to deal with that. However, as you are dealing with this issue, it would be appropriate to deal with it in this committee rather than the Committee of Selection. The Committee of Selection is there to control who serves on the various committees, who are chairs and vice-chairs, brought forward by recommendation from either side, as you know.
Essentially, those are my comments. Realize that hopefully we will never have to face again the issue of having only 22 senators on either side. That is really an impossible situation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Stratton.
Senator Joyal: I have two simple questions. Do you think that the number of members on committees should be reduced? As a corollary, do you think the number of committees should be reduced or merged or readjusted? Let us put it in the broadest terms possible.
Senator Carstairs: I do not think we should reduce the number of committees if there are senators who wish to serve on those committees. For example, I do not think you want to merge Fisheries with Agriculture when those interested in Fisheries are not necessarily interested in Agriculture and vice versa.
I do think we should have the option of reducing the numbers on committees. That is why I made the reference to the Committee of Selection. If our rules read that there have to be up to 12 members, and if the leadership on both sides go forward to a Committee of Selection with the option of saying that in this instance we have only seven people on both sides who wish to sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, then we will make this committee a committee of seven members for this Parliament. That would be part of the Committee of Selection's report. It could not go up and down. It would be that Parliament or that session of that Parliament would have that number of members on that committee.
My concern is that as a leader you are put in the situation where you call a senator and say, "I am putting you on the Fisheries Committee.'' The senator says, "I do not know anything about fisheries and I do not want to serve on the Fisheries Committee.'' I am saying we have to have seven or eight members, whatever happens to be the ratio; "I have to have you serve on the Fisheries Committee and as soon as I find someone who is willing to serve on that committee I will replace you.''
It is idiotic. Why do we have people if, quite frankly, they simply do not want to be there, when it would be equitable and fair? I am not suggesting we change the ratio or the proportion, just reduce the number.
I am really suggesting that we provide the Committee of Selection, on the advice of the whips of both parties — and they are the chair and the deputy chair, generally speaking, of the Committee of Selection — some flexibility in the numbers that are going on the committee.
Senator Stratton: I wish to make a comment. I agree in part with Senator Carstairs. My concern would be to look at the political ramifications of the flexibility of those numbers on an ongoing basis.
I remember as a new senator being put on a committee I knew nothing about. I am sure all of us have gone through that. You wonder why on God's green earth you are sitting on this committee.
I believe it is for the experience of sitting on that committee, even though you know nothing about it, because you want to get a perspective of how the Senate works. The best way to get a sense of how the Senate works is to have a taste of committees across the spectrum of the committee structure. That is important for new senators to experience — not forever, but through the mandate of a session of Parliament. A Parliament, in the life of a senator, is not a long time. That experience is worth going through, even though they do not particularly like it.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to go back to the idea of sitting on the committees because you have a particular expertise. While I think that is good, and we want to continue to encourage that and get the benefit of senators' expertise, I thought the reason we have 12, or whatever number, and we actually encourage and in some cases assign people to committees who do not have an expertise is that they represent all of Canada. They have the balance of the regions to have opinions. For example, I have sat on committees where I did not know the subject matter, but I do know my province and it was my responsibility to go back and see how this affected me.
We are not an academic research think tank that should be putting out another paper on some issue; we are trying to reflect views and regions and bring together some consensus. Am I on the wrong track on that?
Second, sometimes by the special committees — and having only senators that are interested — we are driving the like-minded together. If I have a really good idea, it seems to be current, I simply need to find two or three people who have the same passion as I do, and particularly if I can find someone on the opposite side, and we then try to flog it through the committee. If we do not do it there, we do it on the floor of the Senate, and eventually we end up with something because of the collegiality here.
I am wondering whether it would not be better to have the committees we have deal with broader mandates under which they can incorporate these special studies rather than siphoning them off. It then does not have the same input or commitment from others. Instead, it becomes "the special study of'' rather than a Senate study. I am being rather blunt, because we were told by a previous senator that there were only six people interested in fisheries and so why not reduce the number to six. Those who are interested in fish will study fish. They will come as the Atlantic experts and that report will be seen that way rather than as a Senate report.
Senator Carstairs: Let me move to two questions. In a committee like the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, it is extremely important to have as broad representation from regions and gender as is possible because they deal with, I would suggest to you, up to 80 per cent of the legislation in this place. In that committee, I would fully accept your argument.
However, you are not going to find a senator from Alberta or from Saskatchewan who wants to sit on the Fisheries Committee. Let me assure you; I have tried. It just does not happen. I can occasionally find a Manitoban because we do have an inland fishery.
You get the Atlantic provinces who want to sit on it, and British Columbia. You do not get the rest. It is not a one- size-fits-all kind of scenario.
Regarding special studies, I think their whole purpose is to get people who have an interest in an area and who want to study that particular issue. If you look at the makeup of the Aging Committee, it was very much dominated by Nova Scotia and Manitoba. Why? I do not know. We had one representative — the best, probably, that we could possibly have had — from Ontario, and that was Senator Keon, but the rest came from the other two provinces. That was the reality.
I asked almost all senators whether they were interested in sitting on the committee. I have to tell you that the number one reason they did not want to sit on the committee was that it sat on Monday. The number two reason they did not want to sit on the committee was because they did not have an interest in the demographics of a changing society in Canada.
I got the people, and I am proud of the report that we eventually tabled, because it was generated by the interest of the senators representing both political spectrums, but they fundamentally came from the same place in the country.
Senator Stratton: It is a good question, and I have not specifically talked about it. On the number of committees, I do not believe they should be increased. I get worried. That would be an additional burden. The greatest concern is not just staffing them but to find a time slot. The time slots are the most critical element for committees, and that is why we ended up having the three sit on Monday. There are no time slots available for the rest of the week, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and you sure cannot go to Friday.
On special committees, if it cannot fit into a slot of a committee, then a special committee could be formed. However, if it is work that could be normally done under that committee, why would it not be done under the mandate of that committee?
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology had three subcommittees going, Senator Keon. Is that not correct? That is onerous. To run those three concurrently is just not on. That is too burdensome for the members of that committee. I think rules should be imposed so that if you are to do a subcommittee — and I have had experience in subcommittees — it should be limited so that the members of the committee can cope with those studies in an appropriate way. It is impossible to do so. Senator Keon sat on all three of them, I believe, and it is an impossible task to expect an individual to carry out.
Senator Carstairs: The reason the Special Senate Committee on Aging was established was because it was going to be the fourth subcommittee of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. With agreement on both sides, we said, ''Okay, let us put this on a Monday and have it as a standing special committee.''
Senator Andreychuk: We use the mechanisms of ''special'' and "sub,'' and two members of my committee say, "We would like to study such-and-such.'' They cannot get the whole committee study, so then they say, "Let us do a subcommittee and have a special study, then.'' This committee will have to set some rules or recommendations about subcommittees. I watched Senator Keon and I understand leadership is now questioning the subcommittee concept. It would certainly solve my problems if I could do the same thing. However, every committee would want to do that, which means extra clerks and all of the added staff. I think I will leave it there.
Senator Keon: I want to return to the subject of special committees. I sat on several of them. You seem to always be there, Senator Carstairs. You are either chairing or a fellow member. You will recall we started out with Senator Meighen. That committee addressed a subject that I do not think anything but a special committee of the Senate could address. The spinoff from that committee was tremendous. Senator Carstairs carried the torch with a number of subsequent studies and initiatives, her own initiatives in government when the Liberals were in power, which did a tremendous amount of good. I do not think that could have arisen in any other context.
That brings me to the subject of how special committees should come to be and come alive. I am finishing a subject that I felt strongly about for at least 10 or more years and that had to be done and was not being done. It will be self- explanatory when I address to it so I will not bore you now. There is another subject right now, for example, in the purview of science and technology. Senator Carstairs quite rightly said that science and technology has been ignored. We have a horrible mess in Canada in this field. We have nine powerful bodies, all sending their ducks north to the government leaders to plead their case, and they are not agreeing about what should be done. In other words, it is "Fund me when I go.'' They have government thoroughly confused, I think.
The government made a sincere attempt to overcome this with the formation of the Science Technology and Innovation Council. They rolled all these other advisory committees in there. There are superb people sitting on that council. The only problem with it is that the academy does not agree with them. Dr. Nicholson just came out with a tremendously critical report. The three granting councils do not agree with them; the National Research Council, NRC, does not agree with them; and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, CFI, does not agree with them. They have made their own recommendation, and this time they came away with the money. The university presidents do not agree with them, and the organization of teaching hospitals in Canada does not agree with them.
That brings me to my point. I think there may well be times when the leadership from both sides of the Senate should sit down together and say, "There is a subject that must be addressed and where the Senate can make a tremendous proactive contribution.'' Strike a special committee, let it do the work and get it over with. Do not form a standing committee. You do not need a standing committee. Start the special committee that has the objectivity to bring people of different persuasions from the same field before them. Listen to them, melt it down and collectively come out with recommendations that the government can use. That is my point. I would like to hear comments from both of you.
Senator Carstairs: I share that view. I have been on a number of special committees of this place. In fact, I attended my first meeting of the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide before I was sworn in as a senator because they were meeting in Winnipeg and I was asked to be there. That was my introduction to the Senate. I do not think you could have had a standing committee do that study. It had to be done by a special committee.
Unfortunately, I had to drop out on the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs because I became the leader and was forced to resign. I do not think a standing committee could that done that, Senator Nolin. I am not sure that a standing committee could have done the aging study in the way or with the speed that we did. I know it seemed to go on forever, but it was just slightly over two years.
The Chair: Help me with this. What is it about standing committees that would not permit the three studies that you just mentioned to have been done by standing committees? What is so special about a special committee? What is unique, and how does it differ?
Senator Carstairs: Because it has only one mandate, Mr. Chair. When you have government bills and private members' bills coming before your standing committees — and that takes precedence to any policy initiative being undertaken by the standing committee — then you get disruption in the work of your committee on a fairly regular basis.
The special committee never has any disruption. You start with a committee study, and you continue that committee study without disruptions — other than prorogations and elections, which do interrupt, but about which we can do nothing. We could have been finished that study in a year had those breaks not been imposed upon us. That was our original intention. We wanted to get that thing done as quickly as we possibly could. We had no choice over not sitting because of prorogations and election campaigns.
I did the palliative care study as a subcommittee study of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, so I also have experience with the subcommittee. However, it works only if there is just one subcommittee. I think the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has just gone crazy. I could tell that was going to happen and that is why I decided to establish a special committee. If you have management that says, "Let us do all these special studies,'' then you are totally off the rails. In my view, that is what happened in that particular committee and that is why they ended up doing so many special studies. One is as much as any standing committee can possibly engage itself in at any one time.
I have been on the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and there are some ongoing studies that that committee takes a look at every year, but they do it for a couple of meetings. It is not an intensive study. That can be done. If you are going to do an intensive study on matrimonial property within the Aboriginal community, which they have done in the Human Rights Committee, and then you want to revisit it every couple of years to ensure that progress is being made, that is one thing. However, to begin a whole other study, along with two or three studies you are doing, is impossible. It is the disruptive factor, senator, that is most critical.
Senator Stratton: Just briefly, my only real concern — and I agree with Senator Keon and Senator Carstairs — is that you have to be careful about the number of subcommittees and special committees that you strike, as Senator Carstairs has said.
It is critical that this should be a negotiation between the leadership. However, for goodness' sake, do not allow something like what just occurred in the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. That is very disturbing. I think the special committee, if it is struck, should be for a determined period of time. You do not want these things to go on in perpetuity, which they can and have been wont to do in some instances. You question why they are continuing, and that questioning is there. There should be a very high bar to jump over to continue beyond that time, not just simply going to the chamber and asking for an extension. There must be a higher bar than that.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have 19 minutes.
Senator Nolin: I have a question for both of you and then I have a question for the former leader. It is rare we have a former leader as a witness, so I will take the opportunity.
We have surveyed colleagues, and one question on special committees and legislative committees was answered as positive by 75 per cent of those who answered.
What would your be reaction to having more legislative committees to deal with legislation only and spread the burden?
Senator Carstairs: The only difficulty would of course be deciding which committee to send which legislation to. I could anticipate, for example, a committee that dealt with all natural-resource legislation. Any legislation on agriculture, fisheries, energy or the environment would go to one legislative committee. Then justice issues, others, would go to another legislative committee. That is an interesting model.
In researching my father's term in the Senate, by the way, I discovered that in 1955 there were only two committees in the Senate. Both had 50 members on them. They obviously did not have 50 members show up each time, but that was how they ran at that point. That is what they were. They were essentially legislative committees. Of course, they even had to deal with divorce in the province of Quebec.
Senator Stratton: Again, you are sitting on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Where will you find a time slot to put these in? That is my biggest concern. It seems to be working now, and the rule in committees is that government legislation is first and foremost. Anything else follows along behind — studies, private member's bills, that kind of thing, or references from the Senate. Realizing that issue, I think that for the most part it seems to work. However, if we create more legislative committees, when will they sit? That is the fundamental question. There is no time on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday to allow this.
Senator Nolin: Senator Carstairs, you were Deputy Leader of the Government and then Leader of the Government. It was during your tenure that the salary of chairs and deputy chairs was introduced. Have you seen a change in senators' attitudes towards requests to become chair because of that, and did it affect your decisions as leader?
Senator Carstairs: Let me go back to that time, because it was not my desire that chairs or deputy chairs be paid.
Senator Nolin: As you can see, some of us think that maybe we should get rid of that.
Senator Carstairs: Exactly.
Senator Nolin: It is not shared by all of our colleagues.
Senator Carstairs: It was put in place because they were doing it in the House of Commons, and I insisted that there be parity between the House of Commons and the Senate. Had they not chosen to amend the act of Parliament for the house side, I would not have insisted that the Senate side be included.
My own anecdotal view — and it is anecdotal — is that we have chairs who want to hang on because of the salaries that are paid. I think that is a very bad thing.
Having said that, there is also some anecdotal history that chairs wanted to hang on anyway, whether they were paid or not. People get this idea that they have a right to be the chair of a particular committee. They come and say in no uncertain terms, "I have a right to be the chair of this committee. I have been the chair for 25 years; I have a right to remain the chair of this committee.''
It is not always in the best interests of the committee, quite frankly. There are good chairs and bad chairs, in their ability to manage the committee, to manage the work of a committee. It has nothing to do with their ability to be a senator necessarily. It is a particular skill to be the chair of a committee.
Senator Stratton mentioned a related point: references from the Senate. More and more frequently, senators who do not even sit on a particular committee decide they will send off a reference to a committee. The committee has already decided what their work plan is, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, a reference comes over to that committee. I am not talking about legislation; that happens to all committees. I am talking about the reference to study an issue that happens to be of special interest to that particular senator, even though he or she does not sit on the committee to which the reference is being made. The Senate seems to say that sounds like something nice to study, so we pass it without considering what the ramifications of that reference are to the committee.
I think references for committee study should in fact come from the committee, and if senators have something they want that committee to study, they should deal with the committee and then the reference should come via the committee chair and not an ordinary senator.
The Chair: Senator Stratton, any comment?
Senator Stratton: Just very briefly. When it comes to chairs and deputy chairs being paid, the experience is exactly the same as Senator Carstairs has stated. I do not believe they should be paid; however, I believe we should not take a back seat to the House of Commons. I do not think we should back down from that at all. What does it show the public? In my view, it should stay as it is. If the House of Commons decides to back off, then we would back off.
Senator Brown: In the two years and five different committees, the Rules Committee is the only one I have come up with that is what I would call non-partisan. I guess it is because we deal only with words.
To me, the only partisanship in Senate committees should be partisanship generated, first, by the senators' experience, and second, by the interests of the province they represent. Our Constitution says that senators shall represent the provinces. Can we not make an effort to remove the politically partisan comments from our committee work?
Senator Carstairs: I would invite you to attend some meetings of the House of Commons, where partisanship comes at a whole new level. My experience of 15 years in the Senate is that our Senate committees, for the most part, are very non-partisan.
First, Internal Economy and Rules are special committees. They deal with the functioning of the Senate as an institution, and therefore there is very little partisanship found in either Internal Economy or the Rules Committee. In terms of policy committees, you will find that there is not very much partisanship when special studies or policy studies are being done. There is much more partisanship on legislation, and that is the nature of the legislative beast. There is some partisanship in that particular issue.
However, having sat on a number of partisan committees in the Manitoba legislature, I must say that then when I came to this place, I was delighted with the lack of partisanship at the committee stage. There is lots of partisanship in the Senate, and there should be, in speeches for or opposed to a bill, but in committees, I have been singularly impressed with the lack of personal attacks, the lack of partisanship shown and the attitude toward witnesses. It is often said to me by witnesses before committees that it is much more demanding to appear before a Senate committee than a House of Commons committee, because when you go to a house committee, you just expect the partisan attacks. When you come to a Senate committee, you are forced to be knowledgeable about the thing about which you are appearing. You will get tough questions from both sides without the same level of partisanship.
Senator Stratton: I would just note that I have a meeting at 11:30, so that puts a time limit on how long I can be here.
Senator Brown: I would like to take a bit of issue with Senator Carstairs. I have 25 years of experience in testifying before different committees under different premiers and prime ministers, in the Commons and in all of the provinces of this country. It is the one place where maybe partisanship should not take place, and I have experienced it almost every day in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and in others. It is not useful, and it is the one place where this institution should make every effort to speak to the interests of the senator of the experience they have, and they should also speak to the interests of their own province, because that is what it says in the Constitution.
The Chair: Before turning to Senator Robichaud and asking him to put his question, I would like to apologize to Senator Robichaud. He was on the list earlier, and I misread the list. I am sorry that I did not take you in your turn.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Should we continue to abide by the agreement reached several years ago concerning newly created committees? It was agreed that these committees must sit on Mondays and cannot rotate their schedules with the other committees or meet another day of the week.
[English]
Senator Carstairs: There could be a little bit more flexibility, Senator Robichaud. We know some committees do not sit twice a week in their time slot. We know others always sit twice a week, the Legal Committee being one. Never, ever does it not sit in its two time slots a week. Other committees do not necessarily sit in their time slots. It would seem to me that we could have some kind of booking system whereby, a week before the committee was to sit, the time slots had to be booked. That might open up some opportunities for the Monday committees to sit on other days of the week. We have never gone to that kind of system. We have always said, "All right, it is absolutely carved in stone that you get these particular times. It does not matter whether you apply for them or not, they are there.'' Maybe we could find some more flexibility. I think particularly of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. That is the one that concerns me more than others.
The reality, as Senator Stewart used to say, is that the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal people, the TOM club, can be here on a Monday and not have to fly in on a Sunday. If you live in the West, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, in order to be here for a Monday meeting, you usually have to fly in on Sunday night, and that puts you at a significant disadvantage for Monday meetings. That is not equitable and not fair.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages used to sit when the Senate sat, because it was a joint committee.
The Chair: Senator Robichaud was a member of it.
Senator Carstairs: Exactly. I am wondering whether we could not experiment with a booking system, where committees had to book a week or two weeks ahead of time, and then some time could be freed up for other committees. We are very tight in terms of time. The other thing that could be looked at is whether we allow one or two committees to sit while the Senate is sitting. The house does that on a regular basis. We do not. Should we?
It is interesting that in the House of Commons after Question Period there are frequently fewer people there than in the Senate, and yet we are one third the size. It is not because they are not working; it is because they are off at their committees. I do not think I would like all committees to sit, but maybe we could try it for one or two committees to see whether that works. We certainly do it under special circumstances. If we have urgency with a certain piece of legislation having to get through in a short period of time, we allow the committee to sit while the Senate is still sitting. It is a flexible situation that I think we need to address.
Senator Stratton: I do not have a problem with committees sitting while the Senate is sitting once we are out of government business. That is critical because that is when instant votes and instant debates can take place. It is important that we recognize that. I do not think we should handcuff the work of the committees simply because they should not sit while the Senate is sitting, so I do not see a problem with that, with that one proviso.
The Chair: What about something like reports of committees? A committee might be reporting on an important bill, and there could be an important debate and votes on that.
Senator Stratton: Senator Carstairs' recommendation was that some flexibility be built in. We do not have meetings while the Senate is sitting because of that issue. You can get into private members' bills and there can be votes on those, but if there is a vote on it, there is a 30-minute bell. We have gone to 30-minute bells primarily because of people in the Victoria Building having to get over, and 15-minute bells do not hold any more simply because of that. I would get too much trouble if we had 15-minute bells. The people in the Victoria Building would say, "I could have made that.'' For the most part, the best way to look at it is to try it and see whether it works. If it does not work, then cut it out.
The Chair: I did have some questions to ask, but it is now 11:30 and our time for meeting in this committee is up, and others have to leave. Thank you both very much. It has been useful. You have raised a number of important points that the steering committee will look at. Ms. Lank will be coming next week, and she will be addressing a number of the issues everyone has raised today.
(The committee adjourned.)