Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Privileges, Rules and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:38 a.m. to study 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.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I was very pleased with the discussions we had at the last meeting when Senators Kenny, Stratton and Carstairs stimulated our thinking on this study by bringing forward recommendations and observations based on their respective perspectives. Briefing notes are being prepared to put those discussions in useful format and we will distribute the information promised by Senator Kenny when it is received.
Today we have with us Heather Lank, Principal Clerk of Committees. Ms. Lank has a presentation based not only on the questions and discussions that have been raised here, but also on her experience directing the affairs of the Committees Directorate and as a committee clerk herself.
[English]
While it will be difficult for her, as an impartial servant of the Senate, to offer opinions on what might be the best way for us to proceed, she can offer useful factual advice on what the procedural and administrative consequences for different decisions might be.
Before calling on Ms. Lank to begin her presentation, I will say on the record that the committee will not meet tomorrow, Wednesday, at our usual noon time in respect to the Speaker's barbecue in support of the Government of Canada Workforce Charitable Campaign. I hope everyone will be there to participate in this worthwhile charitable cause.
With that background, I extend a warm welcome to Heather Lank. I consider her to be one of the most important witnesses that we will hear in this committee study.
[Translation]
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to appear before you this morning to contribute to your review of Senate committees. I have been following your deliberations with great interest, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address some of the questions raised.
The discussions to date have been wide ranging, touching on a variety of subjects from the size of committees to time slots to resources, and I will try to address these issues from an administrative and procedural perspective. As a clerk and an employee of the Senate Administration, you will understand that I have to stay away from the political questions that only senators can decide.
In terms of resources, the Senate has 19 standing committees, including Selection and two joint committees, and 12 committee clerks. The Internal Economy committee has a dedicated secretariat, and three committees are served currently by Principal Clerks, that is by Blair Armitage and myself, which means that there are 12 clerks for 15 standing committees.
Of course, this means that certain committees do not have a dedicated clerk, a situation that is exacerbated with the creation of special committees or substantive subcommittees. In my opinion, not all committees require a dedicated, full-time clerk, for example, the joint committees and Selection, while the workload may sometimes justify the assignment of more than one clerk to a committee.
It should be noted that the Senate Administrative Rules, Chapter 5:03, require that the Senate Administration assign a clerk to each committee, but that the assignment of additional staff requires the approval of the Committee on Internal Economy.
There is no doubt that the Directorate is ``lean'' and that resources are fully utilized. Significant amounts of overtime are accumulated by clerks during busy periods, when committees meet in the evenings, and when on travel status, and every effort is made to schedule time off for clerks during adjournment periods in order to liquidate overtime and keep payouts for overtime to a minimum.
The amount of overtime accumulated by clerks ranges from about 100 hours to well over 300 hours per year, with the average being 215 hours in 2007-2008.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Lank, I am trying to make notes and you are speaking too quickly.
Ms. Lank: I can slow it down, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Can you go back over those numbers again?
Ms. Lank: Absolutely; these numbers are from 2007-08. As you can imagine, senator, the numbers vary from year to year depending on prorogations, dissolutions and activity levels, but for the most recent year, 2007-08, the range was from 100 hours to around 350 hours of overtime. The average among the clerks was 215 hours during that period. That gives you an idea of the amount of overtime that can be accumulated.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: The Library of Parliament has prepared a kind of factual summary for us. I do not know whether or not you have seen it.
Ms. Lank: No, I have not seen it, Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: I can show it to you. I can leave with you as well.
Ms. Lank: I could prepare something similar for you, if that would be helpful, Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: If it accurately reflects what you are telling us, then it will do just fine.
Ms. Lank: The document that I have here is for the Library of Parliament analysts. I am talking about the committee clerks.
Senator Nolin: I understand. However, when the Library reports that a committee has sat a certain number of additional hours, I would assume that the clerk has worked the same number of hours.
Ms. Lank: The number of hours worked can vary nonetheless.
Senator Nolin: Then you should produce a document that reflects that fact.
Ms. Lank: Absolutely. I can do that for you. The so-called downtimes such as prorogation and dissolution periods and adjournments are used to create and update documents to service senators, their staff and the public, as well as to review various operations manuals and to create tools to help us serve you better.
One example of such a tool is the budget template that was created by the Directorate's legislative clerks which just last week was awarded the Innovation and Suggestion award at the Employee Awards Ceremony. I have also brought with me examples of some of the documents that were produced during the last prorogation which are also posted on the Intrasen.
[English]
It is important to note that when senators are not here or committees are not meeting, there is a great deal of work to be done. I brought with me 10 ``frequently asked questions'' documents as an example of the kinds of things we produce during those so-called down times, which include updating operations manuals, putting together information documents for senators and the public, updating the introduction document for each committee, as well as, of course, undertaking policy development, hiring and so on. It is important to recognize that down times are only partly down times.
[Translation]
Extended adjournments, prorogation and dissolution periods are also the times when employees can take well- deserved holidays, and recharge their batteries for the intensive periods of committee work. When we are faced with illness or parental or other leave, it is a challenge to ensure that we continue to provide the level of service that senators have come to expect, since the profession of clerk requires skills that are not available simply ``off the street.''
If senators were to create additional standing committees, I would expect that new resources would be required. We are not in a situation where committee clerks do not work full-time. This is something that you will have to bear in mind as you examine the makeup and number of committees.
[English]
I will spend a couple of minutes speaking to the issue of the assignment of clerks because I know this issue comes up from time to time. How is it decided; why are they changed?
To give you a bit of background, Sonia L'Heureux of the Library of Parliament stated in her presentation that the assignment of analysts is an art, not a science. The same can be said for the assignment of clerks. Clerks are usually assigned to a committee for several parliamentary sessions, and a assignments can last for a period of years. We make every effort not to change clerks mid-session to minimize disruption to committees, but of course, there are factors beyond our control that sometimes necessitate a change, such as parental or maternity leaves.
When there is a change, there is often a domino effect, since we do not have extra committee clerks who can be assigned to fill in. One change can result in many changes being required. That being said, changes are generally made between sessions or between parliaments, and many factors are taken into account.
I am aware that committees sometimes become frustrated when there is a change of clerk partway through a study but, as senators know, many studies carry over from session to session and from Parliament to Parliament, so there is never a time when there will be no disruption caused by a change in clerk.
That being said, clerks are hired to be able to clerk any committee. They are the process experts, while the Library of Parliament analysts generally provide the substantive knowledge. When assigning clerks, I have an obligation to look at the big picture to determine how best to assign the resources we have to serve all committees in a professional and effective manner.
Many factors are taken into account, including how long the clerk has been assigned to the committee. We try not to change clerks too often because it takes time to become familiar with the issues and the players, and to be able to use that knowledge in support of the committee.
However, we ask ourselves certain questions. Has the clerk asked for a change? What is their level of experience? What is the best fit between their skill set and the committee? Are they able to travel, or interested in travelling? Do they need the opportunity to develop and apply their procedural skills with a committee that handles legislation, or do they need special study experience, and are looking for the opportunity to set up cross-country hearings and develop that skill set? We want clerks who are able ultimately to serve well on all types of committees, but that goal takes experience. Professional development is a part of reaching that goal, not professional development for its own sake but professional development to serve you and your committees in the best possible way.
Of course there other factors: Is this committee likely to have an experienced chair where it may be able to take a new clerk? Is the committee likely to present particular procedural or other challenges requiring a more experienced clerk? How disruptive will a change be?
The challenge is huge, and one with many, many puzzle pieces. As you can imagine, from my position, when I am looking at the big picture with this number of clerks and this number of committees, the question is, what can I do in terms of the distribution of resources so that all committees will be well served and the resources are distributed in the best possible way? Of course, in that process, there are always committees where I wish I had made other choices. I understand that and I try hard to explain what the reasoning is but, as you can imagine, the issue is complex.
The Chair: There are probably some clerks who wish you had made other choices.
Ms. Lank: That is possibly the case, Mr. Chair.
Another key factor is the scheduling of committees. I cannot assign someone to clerk two committees that sit at the same time, or immediately one after the other, so the schedule of meetings is an important consideration. This point brings me to my next topic.
With respect to time slots and the schedule of meetings, at the beginning of every session the leaderships agree on a schedule of meetings for committees. This schedule has undergone minor changes over the years, including increasing to 30 minutes the time between meetings to allow for the rooms to be cleaned and to permit the transition for broadcasting. Also, Monday slots were added for new committees, but the schedule has remained largely unchanged.
I noted with interest Senator Kenny's proposal for a block system for committees, since I am aware of the frustration that can be caused by membership conflicts.
In terms of increasing the number of slots available to committees, there are many options: Having more slots on Mondays, increasing the use of Wednesday lunchtime, or adding slots when the Senate rises on Thursdays. However, senators must decide whether they wish to have committee activity at those times.
As clerks, we are aware that many senators want Mondays or Tuesday mornings to be available for travel, and senators often like to depart when the Senate adjourns on Thursdays.
If senators wish to continue to concentrate committee meetings between Tuesday mornings at 9:30 and Thursdays when the Senate sits, there are six, two-hour time slots available in addition to Wednesday lunchtime.
Given that the Senate is resourced to enable four committees to sit at the same time, having 12 committees use these slots would be a good fit, while another three or four committees could be assigned to a four-hour slot on Mondays. To eliminate membership conflicts on Tuesdays through Thursdays, committees could be assigned to blocks of four that would meet at the same times.
I have brought with me a mock-up of a schedule based on that concept of block sittings, to give a visual to see how this concept might work. That mock-up is being distributed.
The selection, conflict of interest and Library of Parliament committees likely will not need to be assigned a regular slot, given their sitting patterns. A senator can be assigned to sit on only one committee in each block, thereby eliminating membership conflicts. Monday mornings and early afternoons, and Wednesday lunchtime, can be used for supplementary meetings; for example, for Veterans Affairs, or special committees and subcommittees. Of course, the decision on which committees are put in the same blocks might not be an easy one to make, and it will have to be made politically.
Using the current size of committees, a proposed block system will allow senators to sit on a minimum of two committees without any conflicts. The block system can increase the number of committees on which a senator can sit, without increasing the risk of membership conflicts if it were decided to increase the size of committees.
Of course, if changes are to be made to the schedule, it would make sense for them to be made between sessions and prior to the leadership asking senators for their committee preferences to minimize disruption for senators.
The Chair: Can I interrupt you there? Can you go through the various colours and alphabetical numbers and tell me what they mean: the A, B, C and D, and the yellows and oranges?
Ms. Lank: Absolutely; thank you, Mr. Chair. Essentially, A, B, C and D are the four sets of committees that we would see in the blocks. One set would be one block in A, and that is one four-hour slot. Of course, this mock-up is only a draft so senators may decide to meet from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. rather than 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. or whatever, but the idea is a single block on the Monday of four hours.
The Chair: What do different sizes of the blocks mean?
Ms. Lank: The larger size reflects the fact that it is a four-hour slot in the blue, whereas the other slots are two-hour blocks. Then, the standard sitting time for the Senate is in maroon, and the yellow blocks are times that can be used for special committees or subcommittees, and for extra meetings of committees that do not have sufficient time in their regular slots. The yellow blocks are flex times, if you wish.
I have put the block B on Tuesday morning and Wednesday evening, but of course, it might be decided that B is on Tuesday morning and Thursday morning from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. There is a lot of flexibility but the important concept is that within each of those blocks, for example, B, the same four committees meet in block B. There is not the different overlaps depending on the day. With the current schedule, I believe it is the Committee on Foreign Affairs, because of the way the schedule is set up, there are potentially seven committees in which there is a membership conflict because meeting times were not scheduled on a block basis. Using the block system, only those same committees will meet in the two slots and that is true for B, C and D as well. That system will eliminate the membership conflict issue.
I have based this mock-up on the idea that senators will continue to prefer not to have committee meetings on Thursdays after the Senate rises and on Fridays, but of course, if senators choose to meet at these times, they would open up significantly more time for committees to sit.
Is that clear, Mr. Chair?
Senator Fraser: On this point, preaching for my own parish, you may have explained this item but if you did, I did not grasp it; sorry.
You have on Wednesday block D, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., and then D on Thursday is 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. Is there any reason for that choice? I ask because at the moment legal sits in block D on Wednesday but in block C on Thursday. Was this choice arbitrary?
Ms. Lank: Completely; you can easily move those blocks around.
Senator Fraser: Is there a problem I need to be aware of?
Ms. Lank: No, not at all; I was trying to show also that we are not bound by the current schedule, but it is up to senators completely to decide where they want the two blocks to be and the distribution that they consider appropriate.
The Chair: If someone wants to serve on banking and foreign affairs, under your block system, they probably are not able to, are they?
Ms. Lank: It depends, because if banking and foreign affairs were put into two different blocks, let us say banking was in B and foreign affairs was in D, they could serve on both without any difficulty, but if they were left in the same block — you are right, senator — it would create membership conflicts on an ongoing basis.
If changes are made, because committees are already set up, my recommendation is that changes be made between sessions, so that senators can put forward their preferences to their leadership with the knowledge that these committees are in the same blocks.
There are a few rules of the Senate that have an impact on the scheduling of committees — for example, committees are not permitted to sit when the Senate sits, and there are restrictions on sittings during adjournments of more than a week. Other elements with respect to time slots are based on practice and pragmatism, but they are not in the rules, such as the role of the whips in approving committees sitting outside of their time slots.
It is important to note that changes to the scheduling of committees during a session have important resource implications. As I mentioned earlier, clerks are assigned, in part, on the basis of the schedule. If a decision is made to allow greater flexibility, such as the suggestion by Senator Carstairs in her proposal to allow committees to have a booking system to meet in unused slots, that decision can have resource implications.
Resources will be implicated particularly in the case of where a change in schedule means that a clerk is responsible for two committees that are now scheduled to meet at the same time. Senators will have to be prepared for substitute clerks to cover meetings as necessary, and recognize that flexibility means additional resource challenges.
This problem would not exist if every committee had a dedicated clerk. However, as I mentioned earlier, I am not sure that the workload justifies a dedicated clerk in every case.
The needs of each committee must be considered carefully. I strive to allocate resources in an optimal manner, for example, by assigning a legislative clerk, of which the directorate has two, to assist the busiest clerks when they are putting together cross-country hearings, travel and so on.
[Translation]
I would also like to talk to you about subcommittees, a matter raised on a number of occasions by senators. From an administrative and procedural point of view, subcommittees create challenges.
From a clerk's point of view, serving a substantive subcommittee creates at least as many demands as serving a committee. There is an additional step in many processes, since the subcommittee must receive powers from and report to the main committee, thereby reducing efficiency. There are always additional steps involved when a subcommittee meets. Membership changes are complicated, since changes must be made to the membership of the parent committee, as well as the subcommittee.
There are procedural questions raised by the subcommittee that honourable senators may wish to consider such as: Should the role of the leaders or their designates in substitutions for subcommittees be formalized? Should the rules distinguish between administrative, that is Steering, and substantive subcommittees, for example, with respect to the power to meet in camera? Should the Senate have to approve the creation of substantive subcommittees, given the resource implications?
Regarding the size of committees, I am aware that the issue has been discussed on a number of occasions. While this is an important consideration for senators, from a clerk's perspective, there is little difference in terms of workload between serving a committee of 9 members and a committee of 15 members. Admittedly, the number of photocopies and phone calls to make may vary, but in so far as the basic workload is concerned, there is very little difference.
I noted with interest the proposal that the Selection Committee be given flexibility in terms of the number of senators to be named to committees. It has been pointed out that the number of senators to be named to committees pursuant to the Rules may sometimes be higher than the number of senators interested in being members. I would draw your attention to the Speaker's Ruling of May 9, 2007 which reported there have been many cases of committees not having the full membership as set out in rule 86(1) and reaffirmed a ruling from May 30, 1991 that the rule sets the maximum number of members that a committee may have, but does not oblige the Selection Committee to nominate a full complement of senators for each committee.
Honourable senators may wish to consider revising the wording of rule 86 to clarify that this is the case.
[English]
Finally, senators, a number of non-controversial changes can be made to the rules related to committees to reflect current practices and to clarify the meaning of the rules.
To give a brief example, in our rules, we currently have a Standing Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament and a Standing Joint Committee on the Restaurant of Parliament. They have not been in operation for some time.
We also have reference to private bills related to marriage and divorce, which are no longer sent to the federal Parliament. From the point of view of our procedures, it would be wonderful to correct or delete a number of other small, non-controversial changes to take into account the changes that have occurred.
I will not bore you with the details of the others, but I can share with the clerk of your committee a list of the types of changes that I suggest might be worth making in the process of this particular study.
Senators, I know there are other issues I might have spoken to but I do not want to abuse your patience. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: You were not abusing our patience. The overview was excellent. As I said at the beginning, you are one of the most important witnesses that we will hear from in this study because you are in charge of committees and you have knowledge and data that few other people have.
I will ask for a clarification. You talked about substitution for subcommittees and I did not understand what the issue was. What is the problem?
Ms. Lank: The issue is an interesting one, because the rules talk about substitutions by the leaders or their designates, which are almost always the whips, through a membership change form for committees. There is no reference to subcommittees there at all.
By long-standing practice, the whips have made substitutions on subcommittees — substantive subcommittees such as Veterans Affairs, to give an example — where they have made a change to the membership of the main committee and a change to the membership of the subcommittee. The membership change form in that process is used both for standing committees and for substantive subcommittees.
The rules do not make it clear that the authority is there for subcommittees. Changes have been made by practice for pragmatic reasons; often, a change is needed and the subcommittee meets later that day.
I think senators can imagine that there is no practice, for example, of the whips substituting members on a steering committee, for instance — the administrative subcommittees. There is a question of whether the rules should distinguish between substantive and administrative subcommittees, because there are differences in terms of process, in practice, which are not reflected in the rules.
If senators want the whips to have that power, it might be useful to make that power clear, and to be clear that whips have that power when it comes to substantive subcommittees. As you know, the membership of a subcommittee is named through a motion in the main committee. That is how the names are brought forward.
The Chair: Not by the Senate.
Ms. Lank: Exactly: a question can be raised, is it appropriate that the whips make those changes or not? It might be something you want to clarify — that is the point there, chair.
The Chair: Can you tell me again the difference between substantive and administrative subcommittees?
Ms. Lank: No procedural distinction is made because, in the rules, we talk only about subcommittees. However, in practical terms, a committee like the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs has a long history. It holds its meetings with witnesses in public. It receives its power from its main committee and reports back to the main committee, but much of the work that it performs is comparable to what a standing committee would do, in terms of the process of hearing witnesses, producing reports and so on.
Also, Veterans Affairs has a long-standing practice of sending out public notice of its meetings. In practical terms, that way of functioning is different than, say, a steering committee, which almost always meets in camera, does not hear witnesses and may report back to the main committee but normally only verbally — for example, this is what your steering committee has decided. The subcommittees function very differently.
To take the example of in camera, our rules allow subcommittees to meet in camera. As you know, our standing committees have strict rules about when they can meet in camera, but our rules say that subcommittees can meet in camera. That rule applies as much to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs as it does to a steering committee because our rules do not distinguish between what I call substantive subcommittees that are looking at issues and subcommittees looking at the administration of a committee.
That is how I see that distinction, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Joyal: Ms. Lank, you did not touch on the situation brought to our attention by the witness from the Library of Parliament, which is turnover of personnel. It came to the attention of members that, from the library's side, a group of seasoned researchers went into retirement because they were entitled to do so, and they were replaced by a new generation of researchers.
Do you face the same kind of situation with clerks? Do you have a challenge training new recruits? Is the turnover of personnel more or less the same as it has always been, namely, there is always movement but a slow movement, or do you face a block of new recruits that you must train in a short period of time?
Ms. Lank: Thank you for that question, Senator Joyal.
We have been fortunate in the Senate in terms of having relatively stable employment. It is remarkable. People who come to the Senate tend to want to stay. I was supposed to be here for nine months and, 17 years later, here I am. A great number of clerks who come here think they will be here for a short time but they find the work and the environment compelling and stay.
We tend to have one person here, one person there, coming and going, and retirements from time to time. In our demographic profile, we have been fortunate to have a wide range in terms of age. I do not know their birthdays, but I suggest that we have people in their late 20s and early 30s, all the way into their 50s. We do not tend to have block retirements or block departures.
We have an orientation program for new clerks, where, over a series of weeks, there are a number of meetings, documents and training. We then have a mentoring program with more experienced clerks. Where we find we are challenged, Senator Joyal, is with respect to parental leaves and maternity leaves, where we are forced to juggle resources to cover short-term periods. Because clerking skills are not skills that are found on the street in large numbers, if a clerk leaves for a limited time, it can be difficult to ensure that we bring in people and train them quickly enough so that they can fill in. Sometimes Gérald Lafrenière, Deputy Principal Clerk, and I help to fill in during the transition.
Our bigger challenge has been shorter-term leaves as opposed to turnover and departures. Frankly, most clerks find serving senators and Senate committees to be the kind of work that they want to keep doing.
Senator Joyal: If a clerk must be absent either for parental leave or for pregnancy leave, you find, inside your own workforce, the availability of manpower to fill the period for which that person will be absent from work?
Ms. Lank: It depends on how long the leave is. We have had situations where someone takes three months. We will cover that leave from inside. It does not make sense to go through the replacement process for three months. If someone is going for a year, however, we will look for a term employee. We have had a number of clerks where that has happened; namely, we developed an eligibility list through a competitive process. People on that list, including, for example, public servants who wanted to come to the Senate had an opportunity to spend a year with us. We brought them in on term but when the person who they replaced returned from parental leave, we had to terminate their interim replacement. Everyone knew at the outset that would happen and that they would return to their department.
Staffing depends on the specific circumstances and the amount of time that we are looking at.
Senator Joyal: In the House of Commons, does each committee have a permanent clerk?
Ms. Lank: Committees do not have permanent clerks. In fact, the turnover of clerks in the House of Commons committees, historically, has tended to be more frequent than on the Senate side. I can consult with my counterpart at the house in terms of their current practice, but the House of Commons tends to rotate their clerks more often than we do on the Senate side. That difference is partly a cultural one between the two institutions.
I recognize that in the Senate there is a real desire for continuity, so I try not to make a change every year or two. House committees tend to have more frequent turnover within their clerking assignments.
Senator Joyal: How do you make that decision on turnover within your own directorate?
In other words, what are the criteria for you to decide that it is time for a clerk at a committee to go somewhere else, to put it in blunt terms? I am sorry; I do not want to offend you here.
Ms. Lank: As I said in my presentation, it is an art, not a science. I cannot pretend that the task is easy. I look at dozens of factors, literally. Someone may say: ``You know what, I have been doing this long enough; I need a change;'' or they may say, ``I have a new child at home and I really do not want a committee that will be on the road all the time;'' or ``I have lots of experience on legislation, I have never undertaken a long-term policy study, and I think that would be helpful;'' or, ``My background is in this field, and even though I am not the substantive expert, I would be really interested in working with this committee.''
Also, although all our clerks are fluently bilingual, there are ranges of bilingualism. For example, on the Official Languages Committee, I want to be sure that the clerk is especially competent in both official languages, although all clerks have that ability. That factor might be taken into account. Also, there is the degree of experience. For example, given what the government has said about its plans and its priorities, I think this committee will likely receive a great deal of legislation. A lot of it is an educated guess because I do not know what will happen in the next session; I can only make an educated guess about what may unfold. Let us say the committee will be particularly challenging from a procedural point of view. I want to ensure that I have a clerk on that committee with the procedural skills to serve that committee.
Other factors are workload and schedule. Based on historical analysis, these committees tend to have roughly this level of activity. I think those two committees can be handled by one clerk. If I prove to be wrong in the course of a session, I may have to reallocate resources or give a leg clerk to assist. The schedule is the other thing. I cannot have one clerk serving two committees that are overlapping.
All those factors come into play, Senator Joyal. I try not to make changes too often because I understand that the changes can be frustrating for the committee, and it takes a while to learn each committee. It took me a good year and a half to learn all the acronyms that the Agriculture and Forestry Committee used. By the time I learned them, I was able to make a greater contribution.
We have to take into account the learning curve and the time that the clerk can give to the committee in terms of maximum support and performance.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question to that of Senator Joyal. I know you said there are different cultures between the two institutions — the House of Commons and the Senate — but if you run low on clerks because of maternal leave, and so on, do you have a relationship with the House of Commons so that you can bring up a commons clerk for three months, four months and five months to become a Senate clerk? Is there that kind of relationship? Do they have enough knowledge of our institution and our practices to clerk a Senate committee?
Ms. Lank: That is an excellent question, Mr. Chair. They also are extraordinarily busy and stretched in terms of their resources. From what I have been told, the House of Commons also runs into situations where they say, We have retirements; we have people on parental leave; we are juggling our resources too.
If we were in a situation where we had no one on an eligibility list and there was no other obvious source of qualified people to step in, I would be happy to go to my counterpart in the house and say, Mr. Gagnon, is it possible that you have someone who would be interested in coming?
Perhaps we could work it out. It is not a practice, Mr. Chair. It is not something we have done often.
In the past we have had exchanges. It has been some time now, but more often than not we tend to go to the eligibility list where people have qualified for the position.
There are many elements of the clerking profession in terms of skills that are shared between us and our House of Commons colleagues. Of course, we would need the opportunity to develop in-depth expertise in terms of the rules for each house, if one of our clerks went to the house, and vice versa, but it is an excellent potential source as long as they are not in a situation where they say, You know, Heather, we would love to help but we are stuck, too.
I know Parliament is an environment where it is often difficult to free up resources, despite the best of intentions.
The Chair: Are you interested in having some kind of system whereby you have in reserve a term employee or a clerk who can jump into a situation on short notice? Would you like to have a provision in the budget where someone can be trained and be on call for a three-month or a four-month term when required? Then you would be ready so that you are not in a situation where suddenly three clerks are ill and on leave for three months and their absence means you have nobody, and that Senate committees cannot be clerked?
Do you have a suggestion for this committee looking at committee structure that might help overcome that problem?
Ms. Lank: That suggestion is an interesting one. I do not know of any manager who would say, ``I do not need or want more resources.'' We all would love to have more resources and it would be wonderful to have someone in reserve, but we are also cognizant of the fact that resources are tight. Priorities have to be established; choices have to be made. The idea of having someone in reserve, while extremely appealing from the point of view of how that would make my life easier, is also a situation of having to say, ``We only have so much to go around.'' That situation would be a luxury that, while wonderful, would be difficult to defend.
I will think about this question, senator, and get back to you. Is there a way of providing cross-training for someone in another place in the institution who has a full-time workload and is contributing and justifying the salary that is paid? Is there a way to create a pool of people who can be accessed on an as-needed basis and brought in, rather than having someone on hold? It would be hard to justify having someone on hold.
That being said, it is essential that we have an eligibility list of people who we can bring in on term from the outside, from other places, so that we are never in a position where a Senate committee cannot be served. We have to be able to serve you.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for covering many topics, Ms. Lank.
You say that you would not mind more resources but you are mindful of priorities and choices that must be made. In other words, there is a limit to the resources.
I am unclear as to who sets the limits. That has been a difficulty. I have heard statements in the chamber to the effect that, if senators want to work, they should be given the resources, and comments made that we cannot do everything all the time.
I am concerned about, again, the balance and fairness among committees. I think there is a lot of self-regulation by some committees, where they understand that resources are finite so they say, the committee will only undertake work that will take up the use of one clerk and a certain time slot.
In the last 10 years in particular, I have seen the Senate driven in directions that have not been discussed globally. They have been driven by a particular committee or committees.
An example is the subcommittee structure. Veterans Affairs was always, I was told when I came in, an unusual situation. The subcommittee members were made up of members of the main committee, because members have expertise in the military defence field and then they took a particular interest in Veterans Affairs.
More recently, we stretched the situation of subcommittees to cover more topics of interest to several senators. Subcommittees are put under a committee. From your point of view, if we move to a real subcommittee structure, is it correct that in essence there is no difference in resources, from your point of view, than for a full committee?
Ms. Lank: Senator Andreychuk, you are absolutely right. Sometimes a subcommittee is harder and more resource- intensive than a standing committee. Because of the procedural requirement that everything must come from, and go back to, the main committee, every process has an extra step. That can be onerous.
I mentioned earlier about the membership changes. When it comes to a standing committee, it is straightforward. From a clerk's point of view, a senator is on the committee or a senator is off the committee, and it is easy for both the whips' offices and the clerk to manage.
When it comes to subcommittees, it is easy for an office to forget to change something on both the main committee and on the subcommittee, or to forget to do one or the other. There tends to be built-in inefficiencies in subcommittees.
From a clerk's point of view, creating subcommittees is the equivalent to creating more standing committees, from a workload point of view. Referring to your point about the multiplication of studies and issues, to take the example of the Social Affairs Committee, it had two subcommittees as well as the main committee, and I believe, at one point, the committee had six orders of reference. From a clerk's point of view, to stay on top of that number of orders of reference, that many different business units and the relationships among them, to ensure that the clerk follows up in the appropriate way, to ensure, for example, they have obtained that power for this, and reported this to the main committee is complex and it can be time-consuming. Clerks may also have to ensure, in terms of the membership, that someone is put on the main committee for this subcommittee but then taken off because then they need to go to the other subcommittee.
The chair asked about efficiency in terms of committees. Subcommittees tend to be less efficient in procedural terms because of the requirement for extra steps. That situation does not mean that there are not times when they are the ideal vehicle. There are times when subcommittees have been effective, useful and have worked, so I do not want at all to suggest that they should never be used. However, Senator Andreychuk is absolutely right. It is important to be cognizant of the fact that subcommittees have significant resource implications.
Senator Andreychuk: We would be better off to say we are either going to create a new committee and be upfront about that or force committees into making choices of what they study within the time slots and the resources they have.
Ms. Lank: From a management resources point of view, that approach makes perfect sense.
Senator Andreychuk: When I came into the system there were clerks, and I was told we have one clerk to help the committee.
I then saw other committees that I was not on with two clerks at one point, and then this concept of legislative clerks came about. Are there any rules as to how many clerks and legislative clerks are assigned to a committee, and who does that assigning?
Ms. Lank: With respect to rules, there is a Senate administrative rule that the administration must assign a clerk to each committee. The rule does not say, exclusively, and I am not resourced, as I mentioned at the outset, to give every committee a single clerk, but every committee has a clerk assigned to it.
The Senate Administrative Rules also stipulate that if additional clerks are to be assigned, Internal Economy must make that decision. I have no authority independently to assign a second clerk to a committee. That decision, if it were made, would be made by Internal on my recommendation, based on an assessment of workload and demands.
Generally speaking, it is unusual for a committee to have more than one clerk; it is not at all the norm. If one looks at workload, I have a responsibility as a manager to ensure that my staff can do the work; that they are not stretched to the point where they simply cannot do the work because it is exhausting and too much for one person. I track overtime carefully. I check in with my clerks on a regular basis to ask if they need help and how they are doing.
One factor to look at is a committee's work plan. Let us take an example. If a committee will travel every four to six weeks or every couple of months, the committee has an enormous budget and it has active committee meetings in Ottawa, if the workload is there, where there is a need for extra support to allow that committee to fulfill its work plan — which was approved through the budget process and agreed to by the Senate — then I need to look carefully and consider whether this committee needs a second clerk. If that is the case, it is my obligation to go to the Internal Economy Committee and say, here are the demands; this is what we are looking at; and I think, in this case, a second clerk needs to be assigned.
Ultimately, there are only 24 hours in a day, and sometimes it is not possible for one person to do the work.
That, as I say, though, is the exception, not the norm. I am glad Senator Andreychuk mentioned legislative clerks. We have had legislative clerks since I started at the Senate. They have been around a long time. We affectionately call the position a baby clerk, but the position is essentially a clerk position where they are not given responsibility for a committee. They are not committee clerks, but they provide support for the busiest committees in terms of logistics, research and travel, and in terms of scheduling hearings.
We have only two in the directorate, and they are used as a resource. I move them around. That is something that Gérald Lafrenière and I would look at and say, who needs help here? We ask the question at clerks' meetings, and then we assign accordingly. A legislative clerk may be assigned to one committee for only a month or part of a week, or over a more extended period. Assignment is on an as-needed basis. They are not assigned permanently to a committee.
The Chair: Who are the two legislative clerks?
Ms. Lank: We have maternity-leave situations at play and some movement right now, so you will see different people in those roles, Mr. Chair, over the course of the next few weeks.
The Chair: Earlier, you told us there were two.
Ms. Lank: Jolène Savoie and Matthieu Boulianne are two of our legislative clerks, and Mireille Aubé, you may know, has also worked with us. Indeed, some of our best clerks also came through that professional-development stream; Till Heyde, Cathy Piccinin and others were legislative clerks before becoming full clerks. That role is important for us. Legislative clerks help out as needed and often go on the road. If there are tight public hearings, for example, with one city after another, and as the committee moves across the country, the legislative clerk sometimes is the advance person for the next set of public hearings on the road.
As Senator Andreychuk knows, sometimes the time frames are extremely tight, so we may assign the legislative clerk to travel with the committee in that situation.
That is a decision I make, in consultation with my deputy and with all the clerks.
Senator Andreychuk: If I understand you, there is a Catch-22 here. There are all kinds of competing demands, whether the committee is Foreign Affairs, Human Rights or what have you. Email is always coming in from someone, or there is a delegation saying, you need to study this issue.
As chair of a committee, I may say, I will max out travel, I will conduct as many studies as I can and I will study the topic creatively because the topic deserves it. If I commit to all that study, and I go to Internal Economy and say, these are compelling reasons to have the study.
Given that the committee says that it wants to conduct 10 studies on important topics, you will make a compelling case that the committee needs more resources and you will make that recommendation.
It is not the responsibility of the Rules Committee, then, unless we put it into the rules in some way to manage the balances. We must be clear: Is Internal Economy responsible for the global budget and for the apportionment of that budget between the committees? Is accessing those resources a race to arrive there first to make the case, or is there something that gives the right balance so we know how the resources are accessed?
As a committee member and committee chair, the hardest thing to know is how far I can go, pushing the limits for that committee.
Ms. Lank: One key factor to keep in mind is that the schedule of meetings acts as a natural constraint on how much can be done and how much can be asked of a clerk. They have assigned to them four hours a week, plus whatever travel they choose to do.
It makes a difference, from a clerk's point of view, whether they are managing one or 10 orders of reference; you are right. Ultimately the decision on which orders of reference go to committees is a decision of the Senate, not of Internal. Internal Economy makes recommendations in terms of budgets, but the actual work, in terms of which orders of reference go to the Human Rights Committee, ultimately is a decision of the Senate. Internal must review the budget submissions, whether it is one study or ten, and decide how to proceed.
One of the things ultimately, too — as is the situation for clerks — is that there are only 24 hours in a day and there is only so much work that can be done. For senators, too, there is only so much that members of committees can do, especially if members sit on more than one committee. One of the challenges for a committee is trying to figure out how the committee can be most effective. Will the committee be most effective focusing on one study in depth or doing two, three or more? Only you, as senators, can make that judgement call. Ultimately, the Senate will agree with you and approve it, or not agree.
From a clerk's point of view, we will serve the committee whether it chooses to do one study or ten. Based on my experience, generally speaking — and it is a generalization — often a more focused approach tends to yield excellent results. One of the big challenges, from the clerk's point of view and from my point of view, is the travel component. From a resource point of view, travel is demanding, not only because of the work involved in setting up hearings, but on the road. When clerks are on the road, it means they are not here doing other work. If they have more than one committee they need backup, and they are also accumulating large amounts of overtime.
Travel is hugely demanding. I also know it is demanding for senators on the road. Senators are working during that time. Their days are long as well, and — let us face it — travel is expensive. It costs a lot of money. It can be extremely valuable but, like everything else, we have to make choices. The Senate has to make choices.
Ultimately, as you put together work plans on the basis of your own reflection and advice and so on, we will serve you regardless of whether you have a $20,000 budget or a half a million dollar budget. I will adjust my support staff in such a way that you will continue to be well served, regardless of the choices your committee has made.
Senator Andreychuk: I have one final question.
The Chair: I have other senators. Can I put you on the second round?
Senator Andreychuk: I want to be absolutely certain of the situation. You have put blocks in. If we move off those blocks, what will the overtime costs will be? What will the costs be of going off the block times? That can be in a written form.
Ms. Lank: I will give a brief response. A great deal of the costs depend on whether, for example, you decide to sit on Fridays, in which case overtime costs will be virtually nil because we are at work anyway. We will be here. We will do the job. You may decide to sit late into the night by having a block that goes until 11 p.m. on Wednesday and those clerks have to be here at 8 a.m. on Thursday. Costs depend on the specific choices that are made.
Once you go outside of core working hours, there are overtime cost implications whether it is for the bus running later, stenographers staying longer or clerks working longer. The same is true for travel. Overtime is accumulated when committees are on the road. You know that those days are long.
As soon as you move outside of the core working hours Monday to Friday, overtime costs will result. However, the magnitude will depend on the specific choices that are made.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Have you read the results of the survey to which senators responded? It was a questionnaire asking them for their perspective on committees.
Ms. Lank: I have read the findings, but I have not exactly consigned them to memory.
Senator Nolin: Senators were asked, among other things, whether there should be more legislative and special committees, and a significant number responded in the affirmative. Have you given any thought to how legislative committees could be used more often? And I would ask you to look beyond financial considerations as you give me your answer. Please do not say that because you have only 22 clerks, that would be impossible. I want you to think outside of the box, to consider having perhaps fewer ``political'' committees with a larger number of senators, or perhaps consider legislative or other types of committees. If you want to take some time to think about your answer, you can always provide us with a written response, or come back again at a later date.
Ms. Lank: I will start by commenting briefly, and will provide a detailed follow-up later. I have asked that some research be done into legislative committees. We observed that there were no examples of legislative committees. For years now, the Senate has opted to go with special committees to examine bills. Bill X is examined by special committee X, not by a legislative committee. The rules provide for such a committee, but we have not seen any examples of one. Interestingly, the rules state that such a committee should have no more than 12 members. Another interesting fact is that when you look at the definition of a committee, the chair and deputy chair of a legislative committee would not be paid. I have done a bit of research into this. In the case of special committees, these two positions are paid positions. That is an interesting procedural difference that could be a determining factor in your decision.
I have served as clerk of several special committees. The chair emphasized at the start of the meeting that I should refrain from giving my personal opinion, but let me digress for a moment and relate to you my personal experience. I have worked with Senator Fraser, and with others that I will not bother to name. Based on my experience, these committees are extremely effective, because the members were appointed for a limited period of time to examine a particular topic, generally one that interested them. They were not being pulled in many different directions, which can be a problem for many other committees.
Special committees tend to operate more efficiently. The mandates of standing committee are so broad that usually the members have diverse interests. In the case of a special committee, members are so dedicated to their work that they do an exceptional job. Obviously, committees can be made up of five, eight, ten or fifteen members, or as many as you wish. Legislative committees are limited to 12 members. It is interesting that the Senate has never struck a legislative committee, judging from my research, and I do not know why that is. The Senate has always opted to go with special committees to examine a bill.
Legislative committees would be a nice alternative to subcommittees. If a topic interests senators, instead of creating one or several subcommittees that can sit for a lengthy period of time, a special committee could be a more useful and effective vehicle. I will certainly give this some thought.
Senator Nolin: We invite you to come back again and share with us the fruits of your research.
[English]
Senator Fraser: In reference to the special committee where Ms. Lank and I worked together, to the extent the committee succeeded, it was in large measure because the clerk saved the chair's bacon on more than one occasion.
Regarding the question raised by the chair about having a reserve of people to call on, there might be a small pool available among retirees. They are already being paid a pension and do not necessarily need to be paid a retainer. If a retainer were required, it would be minor for them to keep abreast of rule changes. There might be something we can formalize in that regard. You do not have to comment on this observation.
You discussed substitutions on subcommittees. Have you thought about what we might do regarding this new knotty problem of substitutions for chairs when they are absent?
Ms. Lank: Yes, I have thought about it. I can go through the procedural background quickly with respect to the substitution of chairs, and then pose the questions. I do not have answers for many of them because they are more political than procedural.
Under the Rules of the Senate of Canada, senators are nominated to serve on committees for the duration of the session. Changes in membership can be made by the leaders or their designate. Those changes are recorded in the journals. That is after we receive the membership change forms. The notice is signed by the Leader of the Government or their designate for government members, and is signed by the Leader of the Opposition or their designate for the opposition. In rule 88 of the Senate, committees must choose a chair at their organizational meeting. That process is the first order of business. You have all seen it happen.
I have read some references in the area. Marleau and Montpetit, which is the House of Commons procedural guide, is also a reference for us since we do not have an equivalent guide. The reference provides a couple of key points.
The election of the committee Chair is the first order of a committee's business. . . .
. . . the committee is not properly constituted until the chair has been selected . . . .
If no motion proposing a member for the position of Chair is adopted, no other business can be transacted. . . .
In the event of resignation or removal of the Chair from the committee, a new Chair must be elected before the committee can take up other business.
The committee ceases to be properly constituted until a new chair has been selected. The election is presided over by the clerk of the committee. The vice-chair has no role in the election of a new chair.
Keep in mind that this citation is from Marleau and Montpetit. The House of Commons uses the term vice-chair rather than deputy chair.
The Vice-Chairs of committee serve as replacements, presiding over meetings when the Chair is unable to attend. All the Chair's powers can be delegated to the Vice-Chair, but the Vice-Chair cannot preside over a meeting while the office of Chair is vacant. . . .
In the absence of the Chair and the Vice-Chairs of a committee, an Acting Chair must be chosen to preside over a committee meeting. . . . the clerk of the committee presides over that election of an Acting Chair at the beginning of the meeting. . . . An Acting Chair has all of the powers and duties of the Chair while presiding but has no power to convene meetings of the committee or to preside when the office of the Chair is vacant.
It is absolutely critical that a committee have its chair from that procedural background. If a chair is removed from the committee through a membership change, the chair is not a member of the committee any more. Pursuant to our rules, the position of chair becomes vacant. Therefore, at the next meeting, to be properly constituted, the first item of business must be the election of a new chair.
That situation raises a number of important questions. I will throw some out in response to your questions. I am afraid they are more questions than answers. One question raised in this context related to the numbers between parties, and the chair having to vote more or less. From a clerk's point of view, that is not an issue at all. How the numbers break down in terms of votes is not our concern. That question is a political one that senators will have to reflect on. Keep in mind that the distribution of membership on committee changes with every session. Sometimes the numbers are close; sometimes the numbers are wildly discrepant. Sometimes this makes a difference to votes; more often than not, I suspect, it does not make the slightest bit of difference.
The Chair: The clerk is responsible for the papers to make the substitution before the vote.
Ms. Lank: We are responsible to track all those substitutions that we receive from the whips' offices.
The Chair: That is often material.
Ms. Lank: The whips give them to us, and we have an obligation to know who the current members are so that we can track any votes properly.
One question is whether a distinction should be made between permanent changes and temporary substitutions, as is done in the House of Commons. The house has a different system. They name their permanent members at the beginning, and changes are made only for the day; the change lapses at the end of the day. A permanent change in membership requires a report back to the chamber. Otherwise, membership change forms are a daily process.
Currently, when we receive a change, the new member is a member until they are removed. There is no lapsing of membership changes, and we often do not know for certain if the change will be for a day, a week or a month. Frankly, I suspect there are times when the senators involved or the whip's office do not know if it is for a day, a week or a month. Sometimes, the change might be an issue of travel, illness or other things.
It is interesting that in the House of Commons they have the concept of associate members from whom the membership of subcommittees can be drawn. Even if people are not members of the main committee, they can be members of the subcommittee. I mentioned earlier the challenges of substitutions that we have with main committees and subcommittees. The House of Commons has a completely different structure that allows people to be a member of the subcommittee without being a member of the main committee.
If you decide to go with the idea of permanent membership based on the report of the Committee of Selection, it will be important clearly that the names on those lists that are brought to the meeting of the Committee of Selection are the members that everyone wants. I am aware that sometimes names are put on those lists pending further discussion. Names are given and changes are made later.
With the current system, that flexibility exists. You simply use a membership change form. Even though the Selection Committee report is adopted by the Senate, it is not binding in terms of the leadership's capacity to substitute on and off.
If there were a rule change to allow temporary substitutions without affecting the permanent membership of a committee, including the position of chair and deputy chair, what are the implications, given that these positions are paid positions? How will that work? What are the implications? Would it be the permanent member who is paid? What if the replacement is long-term? Those questions need to be thought about.
Essentially, the clerk's only concern is that a committee be duly constituted. We need to know that we are taking minutes of a meeting that is conducted properly, that the rules are being followed. If we know that a chair has been taken off a committee, it is our responsibility as clerks to say: This committee is not duly constituted because we have received a membership change form removing Senator X from the committee, and therefore, as clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of a chair.
We have that procedural concern, but in terms of the issues raised — the numbers, votes, et cetera — that is not a problem from a clerk's point of view, because we do not care who wins votes or who loses them. It makes absolutely no difference to us. We need to know only who the members are who are allowed to vote.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If the committee members were unanimous in their choice of chair, would that carry any weight?
[English]
Ms. Lank: One of the key concepts is that when the clerk presides over the election of a chair, the clerk is not the chair. Clerks cannot make any procedural determinations at all. They cannot rule on points of order. They cannot enter into debate. They simply preside over the election.
If the committee were to agree that because Senator X is off, they want Senator Y to preside for the day, they would ask the clerk to make a procedural decision; to say that decision is in order, because there is no chair. The committee is not duly constituted. How can a body that is not duly constituted make a decision? It cannot.
If a committee were to do that, it would put the clerk in a terrible position. Second, if it went ahead and someone challenged it and asked whether that committee was properly constituted — who the chair was, what decisions were made, whether privilege applies and whether it was covered — it could raise problems, so I strongly advise against it.
The Chair: That answer is pretty persuasive.
You talked about the clerks being kept up to date. When I practised law, it was mandatory to attend refresher courses in February to be brought up to date on the law and other things that were happening with the bar.
Do you have courses like that for all your clerks in order that they can learn about the new rules, other administrative changes and things they should know about committees? If so, what form do those courses take?
Second, as Senator Kenny said, when start up a committee at the beginning of a new session, many steps must be taken. Have you given any thought to simplifying some of the procedures?
I asked a couple of senators from the group of 18 how they are making out and whether they have found any surprises. A couple of them said that they find a number of the procedures here archaic.
Third, you said that if you have decided that a committee will have a second clerk, you must have that decision approved by Internal. Is there a rule that Internal makes the decisions about the number of clerks? Is the authority simply financial?
Ms. Lank: In terms of keeping clerks up to date, there are no courses, per se. I wish there were, but there are not. We have meetings with clerks every week or two. Part of those meetings involves procedural updates, interesting things, important things that have happened in committee or in the chamber of which clerks —
The Chair: Speaker's rulings?
Ms. Lank: Speaker's rulings of which they need to be aware.
Recently, Till Hyde and Charles Robert came to a clerks' meeting to review the rulings with respect to Royal Recommendations: What does that ruling mean? How does it affect us? How does it affect the advice we give?
Procedural education is part of our ongoing obligation to the clerks and to you. It takes place on an ongoing basis through meetings of the clerks. In addition, we have procedural development seminars. We sometimes have joint training with the House of Commons clerks to share issues of common interest on procedural knowledge, developments, challenges and so on. That training is another forum.
We also have what we call a knowledge management tree. It started off as a handbook for clerks and was later broken down into modules through the joys of technology. We have built a series of modules, including procedural modules, on, for example, organization meetings, chairs of committees and vacancies, and various other elements. We encapsulated them in documents that are accessible to the clerks. Clerks have these procedural documents for their training as well, so it is an ongoing part of their professional development.
With respect to simplifying things, yes, I understand senators can become frustrated when there is a delay in getting things done. One change you may have noticed, for example, is that in the past, every committee had to go to the chamber to ask for permission to broadcast. We made the recommendation that there be a blanket motion at the beginning of session so that all committees had that power and senators did not have to go through the time- consuming process of notice and passing a motion. The same thing is true for hiring of staff for legislation. It is accomplished in a blanket motion instead of hiring one by one. Those changes simplified the start-up for certain committees.
The other thing that has been important in terms of simplifying process, and it is an important change, is the recent decision of internal economy to have working meals in Ottawa charged to the central budget that I manage on behalf of committees so that committees are no longer forced to budgets for lunches and dinners. The number of budgets we have avoided having to process through the subcommittee, Internal Economy and the Senate is remarkable; a wonderful policy change from the point of view of efficiency and effectiveness. It is still transparent. We are not talking about something where there is an enormous amount of discretion either. If you meet from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. you need dinner, so it does not make sense to force you to go through that onerous process. That policy change is an important one as well.
With respect to the other elements that are interesting, with the way the rules are currently structured, the Senate has said committees need orders of reference to undertake work. The House of Commons, as you may know, senators, has the authority to undertake work within their mandates with an order of reference. The agriculture committee can look at an issue related to agriculture without going to the house for an order of reference. They can simply undertake that work and report back.
The Senate has chosen to require committees, with few exceptions, including this committee, to go to the Senate for an order of reference. That requirement inherently adds time. Obviously, a decision to change that process to say that the committees can simply undertake work will require debate and a political decision one way or another.
Some of the time delays are based on fundamental principles that the Senate has built into its rules. One is that there will be a debate and a decision by the Senate on orders of reference. Also in the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget process requires that the order of reference be granted before the budget is approved and submitted to internal.
There are some inherent delays in the process and one of the questions to ask is whether Parliament is about efficiency. There are many other factors that figure into that question. Efficiency is one of them but there are other things — the opportunity to debate, to discuss and to make decisions — and sometimes those things take time. For elements where we have been able to simplify process, we have tried to make that happen by giving advice to suggest a way to make things easier and simpler without sacrificing any of the other key principles.
Those are my comments on that element.
Finally, with respect to the allocation of resources, Mr. Chair, yes, chapter 5.03 of Senate Administrative Rules is explicit that if I wish to assign more than one clerk to a committee, I must go to Internal Economy, and Internal Economy has that authority. That is given through the Senate Administrative Rules.
The Chair: Thank you for those answers. Honourable senators, I do not have other senators on my list but under rule 91.1 of the Rules of the Senate, ``a senator though not a member of a committee may attend and participate in it deliberations.'' Senator Kenny, who is not a member of this committee, is here and has asked to put some questions. Senator Kenny, you have the floor.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Chair, this is not really a point of order but a point of something or other. Years ago, I remember going through this same process — specifying out loud that this senator is not a member of the committee but has the right to attend and put questions — and I was taken sharply to task by more than one colleague for singling out this senator in this manner, and I have since seen other chairs similarly taken to account. I am not taking you to account. I only suggest that perhaps we do not need to draw attention to the fact that a given senator is, or is not, a member of the committee. The senator is here, the senator puts a question, and we all know who the members of the committee are. Other than that, drawing attention to the senator is not really relevant.
The Chair: Thank you for bringing that matter to my attention.
Senator Kenny: You could say, ``I would like to be a member of the committee.''
I had only a couple of small points, Mr. Chair. To underline what Ms. Lank has said about subcommittees, in the case of Veterans Affairs, it has all the work of a full committee. The so-called parent committee has voted unanimously that it should be a full committee because its work is principally health and long-term care. That area is what that subcommittee focuses on. The substitutes that Ms. Lank was talking about are people who come, who are not interested in national security and defence, but are interested in health issues and long-term care issues. They substitute onto the committee almost on a regular basis. I can think of three senators who are, or have been, prepared to substitute on almost a regular basis.
Senator Smith: They participate almost in rotation.
Senator Kenny: Almost: The work of the subcommittee is 80 per cent health and long-term care, and 20 per cent ceremonial, representing the Senate at the cenotaph or things like that. I am not sure it is the same with other subcommittees, but in that particular one, there is fear that the work before the committee will grow because of so many veterans coming back from Afghanistan. We see a huge wave of cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome coming up in the next year or two. We think it will be a full-time job for a group of senators who have a particular interest in that area.
On another subject, I noticed on the graph that Ms. Lank distributed that there was no reference to the time in chamber as possible committee time. There may be perfectly good reasons not even to consider that possibility, but if two committees were allowed to sit while the chamber was sitting, 12 committees could be covered every two weeks and they would have an extra two hours of sittings. I know that happens in the other place. I believe that is the case in Westminster. I believe it is the case in a great many legislatures. Obviously, they do not have all the committees sitting then. They rotate them through, so every second week committees know they will pick up a couple of hours on Tuesday or a couple of hours on one of the sitting days. I do not know if there was any particular reason why it was not considered here, but it will expand time available, and it is not a time that clerks are conflicted. From that point of view, additional costs will not be incurred. There are always additional costs, but there will be fewer additional costs.
I notice Monday time slots start at four o'clock. Is there a particular problem other than travel to have those times starting earlier than four o'clock? If the majority of committee members are willing to start earlier, it is a preferable time. If people are willing to take the trouble to come to Ottawa to start at 2 p.m., for example, and meet until 6 p.m., that would be a lot better for a whole lot of people than starting at 4 p.m. and going until 7:30 p.m.
Ms. Lank: On the points of Senator Kenny, the first one on why there is nothing here with respect to sitting when the Senate is sitting, I did not feel that, given that the rule currently says committees cannot, it would be appropriate for me to add those times to this draft. I was working within the bounds of the current rules, but clearly, from a clerk's point of view, it is doable because, you are right, it does not create more conflicts for clerks.
I know there are implications for the parliamentary reporters, and that is something that my colleague, Mr. Armitage, might be able to address at another point.
From the clerk's point of view, it is not a problem at all. There are other issues that need to be taken into account with respect to that suggestion, but I was working in terms of the current rules.
Senator Kenny: Fair ball: I thought that if senators saw the potential upside, they can also look at the downsides, and look the suggestion in context, but I understand.
Ms. Lank: The other question with respect to Monday, Senator Kenny, I used the 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. slot on the basis of the fact that we know many senators like to travel on that day. That being said, this plan is simply a draft and, frankly, from an administrative point of view, earlier is better for us too. From the point of view of overtime and length of day, we prefer to work from two o'clock to six o'clock rather than four o'clock to eight o'clock, but we also are cognizant that many senators come from out of town and prefer a later start. There is absolute flexibility here. It is more the concept than the specific times.
Senator Kenny: My last question deals with Tuesday mornings. Has Ms. Lank considered having two blocks on Tuesdays: one from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and one from 9:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.?
Ms. Lank: I thought about it. I have found one of the big challenges is very early starts to committee meetings. If senators were prepared to come to a meeting starting at eight o'clock, from a clerk's point of view, we will be there to serve; but it was more to recognize that some senators use Tuesday morning also to travel, to come into town. In this proposal, we were trying to work within the bounds of what we are working with now in terms of that 9:30 start. From my point of view, an earlier start would be feasible. It is more a question of whether senators are prepared and willing to have such an early start on the Tuesday.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chair, my last observation is that the Senate has an undeserved reputation of being a lazy place, a place that does not accomplish much work. The phrase ``taskless thanks'' comes up far too often for any of us to find amusing. To structure the rules to allow the Senate not only to take as much advantage as it can of the week but to be seen to do that I think is hugely important. I believe this committee can have a large impact on helping that public image become apparent.
For example, when we have three committees meeting on Monday, it is hard to say that we are a three-day-a-week organization. The media can come and see us working on Mondays. Anything that the Rules Committee can do to bear that in mind, I think, is awfully important for the public perception of the institution.
The Chair: Senator Andreychuk has told us, and she has a committee on Mondays, that it is extremely difficult getting people to attend on Mondays, and for senators to come to meetings. A Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday meeting of the Human Rights Committee would be a lot better and easier for senators. Mondays are not the easiest of days. As Heather Lank has said repeatedly, a number of senators consider it to be a travel day.
Senator Kenny: In fairness, I have been sitting on Mondays for the past seven years, and I understand Senator Andreychuk's concerns. However, we still have over 80 per cent attendance, but it is a challenge. We have gone through times where we have sat in the morning and all day, where senators have come in the night before, by their choice. We have met from noon until six, by the senators' choice. One cannot make senators come if they do not want to come, but we should not make it difficult for them to come if they are prepared to come.
The Chair: Honourable senators, are there further questions to be put to the witness? Seeing none, on behalf of the committee, Heather Lank, I thank you very much. Your evidence has been excellent, timely and useful, as I thought it would be.
Ms. Lank: Thank you.
The Chair: My request is that as we hear further witnesses and study further, you will consider coming back again if we have further follow-up questions.
Ms. Lank: With great pleasure, senator, absolutely.
The Chair: I think you are planning written answers to a couple of the honourable senators' questions.
(The committee adjourned.)