Transcripts & Minutes - Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (44th Parliament, 1st Session)

Past Session:

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, February 28, 2022

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 11 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider potential changes to the Rules.

Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this first public meeting in the current Parliament. I will remember it because we’re witnessing very worrisome events internationally. Everything going on in Ukraine speaks directly to us as parliamentarians.

However, we have more prosaic matters to debate on the Rules that concern us.

First, I’d like to welcome Senator Batters, who will be permanently replacing Senator Mockler, and I acknowledge the following attendees: Senator Black from Ontario; Senator Busson from British Columbia; Senator Clement from Ontario, Senator Deacon from Ontario; Senator Duncan from Yukon; Senator Greene from Nova Scotia; Senator Ringuette from New Brunswick; Senator Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Lankin from Ontario.

Today, as discussed at our previous meeting held in camera, we will consider rule 12-7 relating to committee mandates. We will proceed in two steps. In the first and easiest step, we will propose minor changes to rule 12-7 based on stylistic considerations, which should have no major structural incidence. In step two, we will address more substantial changes we plan to make to rule 12-7 with respect to new committees’ mandates and structural changes to committees.

Before we go any further, I’d like to point out that we have with us Adam Thompson, the clerk assigned to our committee, as well as clerk assistants Shaila Anwar and Till Heyde, who will guide us through this.

Why are we doing this exercise? A number of senators have expressed an interest in reviewing the committee mandates to make them clearer, but also to simplify the title of rule 12-7. As you know, the times are changing. This rule, which specifies the nature of the various committees, was formulated several years ago, and the wording has not been reviewed in a long time. Therefore, we want to simplify the wording to give committees more flexibility and perhaps reflect more current practices with respect to committee mandates. As you know, committees are also governed by rules 12-8 and 12-9. Therefore, all studies undertaken in committee must be approved by the Senate since the order to refer to committee originates in the Senate.

That said, the following four committees listed in rule 12-7 have power of initiative and therefore don’t require an order of reference: the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration; the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament; the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators; and the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight.

You will see that in the first part of the document we have for you there are no changes to be made to these four committees regulated by rule 12-7, which is why more clarifications are made for these committees compared to the other committees.

The goal for today would be to go through the document that you received, specifically Step 1. We’re going to go through the Rules item by item to get your comments and answer your questions.

Today we really want to get your agreement or your comments in relation to step one of this document. After that, the document will be available for consultation within each of your respective groups. At a future meeting, we can agree on a somewhat more final version.

With that, I would ask Till Heyde and Shaila Anwar if they have any comments on the introductory remarks, and if you have any general questions, you can ask them afterwards.

Mr. Heyde, you have the floor.

Till Heyde, Assistant Clerk, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office: Madam Chair and senators, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you this morning.

[English]

I won’t add much, Senator Bellemare, to what you have indicated. As you’ve noted under rule 12-9(1), committees can conduct work on matters as authorized by the Senate. This includes bills, studies, estimates, pre-studies, et cetera.

Then if you work backwards, under rule 12-8(1), the Senate can send any topic to any committee as it chooses to do so. In practice, of course, this work, particularly in relation to studies, is generally developed by the committees themselves. As you know, the committees will often have planning sessions where you’ll develop the ideas of what you want to do, and then that’s worked into a motion — sometimes general, sometimes specific — to authorize the committee to conduct that work. But in developing their work plans, committees are typically guided by the general mandates that are set out in rule 12-7, which I understand is your focus this morning.

In theory, these general mandates are not binding on the Senate under rule 12-8(1), but in practical terms we see them as guidelines that are adhered to fairly strictly. So this committee’s work to review the mandates will help ensure that the guidelines reflect senators’ current needs after several decades where they’ve changed, developed and been adjusted. It’s an opportune time, perhaps, if you choose to do an overview of them.

As you noted, Madam Chair, there are four committees outlined in rule 12-7 that are able to initiate their own work: Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA; Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators; Audit and Oversight; and this committee. They are distinct cases. I would also note that there is one other committee that is in that category, and that is the Selection Committee, which is neither a standing nor a special committee. It’s covered in rules 12-1 and 12-2.

I think Shaila may have some points to add. After that, we would be happy to take any questions you might have.

The Chair: Shaila, do you have something to add?

Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: Senators, you and Till have both summarized the various issues well, but I’m available and happy to answer any questions that may come up over the course of the discussion.

The Chair: Thank you. We will begin.

Senator Lankin: Thank you to our clerks who have given us a little bit more background.

Shaila and Till, as I understand it, the proposal we’re looking at would standardize the language and the description of each of the committees; shrink it down to a broad kind of general description; and then any committee that wants to do a specific piece of work, as they would have to today if it were to fall within the broad parameters of what we’re proposing within this change of wording, would bring forward a motion, and that’s what would happen today. So the specificity will be in the motion to the Senate, and the Senate has control over that. The specificity is not in the Rules. So as we go forward, we would be able to change that.

Second, I just want to ensure that we’re all on the same page. We’re only dealing with that issue now of how the committees are currently described and how we might streamline and standardize that — modernize it, I would say — and that any discussion of additional committees or whatever is going to be a separate discussion, because there are conversations that are taking place, which I’m sure the chair will share with us.

So, Till and Shaila, have I got it right in terms of the goal of this is to streamline, modernize, simplify the language and put the specificity into the committee motions that come to the Senate Chamber? That is for either of you.

Mr. Heyde: Thank you, Senator Lankin and Senator Bellemare. I will defer to the chair on your second question, because that deals more with the committee’s future plans.

In terms of your first question, that is my understanding. Mandates were first introduced into the rules — more detailed mandates — with the significant rule changes in 1968, which took effect in 1969. Before that, it was just “this is a committee — no details about what it was doing.” In 1969, the mandates start being lengthy. Then we had a change in the last 20 years or so as new committees have been established, notably National Security and Defence, Human Rights and Official Languages that had more generic mandates.

My understanding is that this is an opportunity the committee has to go through and try to make the mandates more uniform. Rather than having some mandates that are extremely detailed and others that are very general, it would be to look at whether those could be more standardized.

As I said, I think it would be more appropriate to defer to the chair on the second question.

The Chair: On the second item, I think we have step two in the document that was sent to you. In step two, we introduce changes to new committees, some changes in the actual committees and some other changes that may come up from the debates that we’ll have. But so far, step two takes account of the informal debates that were done before us with Senator Forest-Niesing and others. That’s step two.

For the moment, for two hours, we’ll go through step one.

Senator Lankin: I would like to just close my thoughts on that. So the question before us is this: Do we agree with the general approach of streamlining, modernizing and standardizing; and is there anything offensive in the actual words that have been proposed? As we get through that — if we get through that — then we can talk about step two or other things.

The Chair: Exactly.

Senator Lankin: Thank you.

Senator Duncan: Thank you to the staff for the presentations this morning. They were helpful to us. I appreciate the focused work we’re undertaking.

I understand from Senator Lankin’s comments, and I might have missed this in Senator Bellemare’s, that step two and onward of the increase in committees is some ways down the road. That being said, while we’re undertaking this work, even looking at the wording of the mandate has, in my mind, cost implications. I know we’ve had the report from CIBA regarding the budget for the coming year and the Senate’s work. I wonder if there has been any sort of thought as to whether these changes might change the funding allocated — the budget.

The Chair: Thank you for that question, senator. I can tell you that the first step has no financial implications. It does not create any new committees, and it doesn’t create subcommittees either. It’s only stylistics. As we go through, I will have some comments specifically about one committee, but for now, I can tell you that it has no financial implications.

Step two does have financial consequences, but we’ve been debating on that issue the last time, and I remember that the general comments were not to be constrained too much by the financial implications for the moment. Then we may engage with CIBA in conversation if needed. We may also try to accommodate new needs through rationalization of actual resources.

But we’re not there yet. The first thing is step one, and it will bring us to step two, which we may have time to start today for general comment if it goes quicker than I think on step one.

[Translation]

Does that answer your question?

[English]

Senator Duncan: It does answer my question, Madam Chair. However, even the stylistic changes will open the door, in some senators’ minds, for additional studies. I just wanted to flag the financial implications, as we had the CIBA report presented on Thursday last week. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Shall we start?

Senator Wells: There are a couple of things I’d like to point out before we get into the deep dive in this. We have two processes that are not interchangeable but they both happen when we will do any studies in committees. Some are generated by the committees themselves after discussion with the full membership, guided by steering, and the other aspect is directed by the Senate itself. We hear it all the time — various senators requesting that committees study something or other. It’s always been my position that if you’re highly engaged on something you would like studied, you should join the committee and have that discussion as part of the committee rather than part of the Senate.

I also recognize there are times when the Senate directs or should direct committees to study something that is of a more specific and important nature — that it be referred to committee. That is outside of bills, obviously, which would go to committee anyway.

The other thing I would like to mention for all senators, but particularly for the newer senators, is that the Senate, if not always then certainly in my memory — and my memory predates my appointment to the Senate — has given flexibility within committees whereby an item might be sent to a number of committees for study. Legal and Constitutional Affairs seems to get quite a bit, and it should. The very same issue could also go to Social Affairs or even Banking. It’s not my place to caution, but I would say it’s beneficial to the Senate and to our committees to have the flexibility to receive bills that might not be perfect for that committee but can still be good for that committee.

I’ll point to the bill we ran into last year, which was Bill C-218, the sports betting bill. There was a push to get it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but in June they were fully backed up. I don’t know if it would have reached their docket but not their study because of the schedule. There was then some discussion about it going to the Social Affairs Committee because of certain aspects of gaming, and it ended up with the Banking Committee because while it did have some banking and financial implications, they were also the committee that had time on their schedule in the limited amount of time we had left in the session to take it. That’s just a word of advice to leave enough flexibility as to not be limiting to certain areas of study to go to various committees. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, senator.

Let’s start with step one.

[Translation]

So, if we look at the document, rule 12-7(1):

[English]

. . . the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, which shall be authorized:

(a) to consider, on its own initiative, all financial and administrative matters concerning the Senate’s internal administration, and

(b) subject to the Senate Administrative Rules, to act on all financial and administrative matters concerning the internal administration of the Senate and to interpret and determine the propriety of any use of Senate resources . . .

There are no modifications required. The reason, as was pointed out and I will repeat, is that this is a committee that has an initiative power. It has a description that is more detailed because of this reason. Do you have any comments on that? Do you agree with the recommendation? I see thumbs up; okay, on to the next one.

12-7. (2) the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, which shall be authorized:

(a) to propose from time to time, on its own initiative, amendments to the Rules for the consideration of the Senate,

(b) to examine any question of privilege referred to it by the Senate, and

No modifications are required. Thumbs up? Thank you.

Now for the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, whose current mandate is the following:

12-7. (3) the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, to which may be referred matters relating to official languages generally . . .

This is a very general mandate and there were some additions made to it:

12-7. (3) the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, Arts and Heritage, to which may be referred matters relating to official languages, the arts, and heritage generally . . .

In talking to some people, like the chair of that committee, Senator Cormier, and even within our steering committee with the comments made by Senator Carignan, I propose that elements of the changes in 12-7(3) be discussed in step two because it’s not only stylistic, it also involves enlarging the focus of that committee. I think it may need more debate than style here, and it might involve witnesses if we want to give proper recognition of the fact that it includes arts and heritage, which actually goes to the Social Affairs Committee.

[Translation]

Senator Ringuette: Of course, I wish to signal my objection to the changes, to adding the “arts and heritage” section, because official languages is a constitutionally defined matter and it also relates to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has nothing to do with arts and heritage.

I can tell you also that when I was a member of Parliament, because that committee was considered constitutional it was a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, and I was co-chair from the House of Commons.

Of course, that committee requires careful oversight. No, I’m telling you, I cannot agree to blending in arts and heritage issues — perhaps heritage, just barely — but in principle, it is a constitutional matter, so I am categorically opposed to the proposed changes.

The Chair: You have been heard, senator, and in the document for step one, any changes for this committee will be removed. The comment should be —

[English]

No change, no modification required.

[Translation]

In the document you have before you, we are going to replace the items in the comments with —

[English]

No modifications required.

[Translation]

If we wish, we can discuss this further in step two. The arts are an issue all on their own. Should we leave it to SOCI and what do we do with it?

We’ll save that for another discussion, but you have been heard, Senator Ringuette.

[English]

Senator Lankin: In part, I was also going to address that the actual proposal is not to change it at this point in time, but to talk about it in the next step so we can try and move through the first step today. The chair has reached out to the chair of that committee, and there will be an opportunity for us to further that discussion.

I think there’s a lot of room to talk about where those other items might go that wouldn’t be under the Official Languages Committee, or OLLO. I understand the arguments that Senator Ringuette is making. Let’s hold those until we get to step two and we’ll talk further about what process would be used to do a proper consultation, and also to discuss the question of “if not there, then where?” I think that’s what we’ll come down to looking at. Thank you.

Senator Wells: I want to put my support behind the comments of Senator Ringuette on this. I know we’ll get to it in phase two, but broadening something that is outside the purview of a constitutional question, and one of the specific reasons for the Senate, to something that may have a place in some committee but not as something that bumps the stand-alone necessity that Official Languages has in the Senate. I can imagine if we were to add something alongside Aboriginal Peoples that moved it to the side alongside something else that wasn’t a specific constitutional necessity for us to discuss, there would be significant problems as well. I see that the same in this one. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, it’s understood that there no modifications are required for 12-7(3), so we will move on.

12-7. (4) the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which may be referred matters relating to foreign or Commonwealth relations generally, including:

(a) treaties and international agreements,

(b) external trade,

(d) territorial and offshore matters . . .

The suggestion here is to remove the bulleted list so that the mandate will be more general and will read as follows:

12-7. (4) the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which may be referred matters relating to foreign or Commonwealth relations generally . . .

Do you agree? Thumbs up. Perfect.

12-7. (5) the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which may be referred matters relating to federal estimates generally, including:

(a) the public accounts and reports of the Auditor General, and

(b) government finance . . .

Here, we would integrate the bulleted list. The proposition reads as follows:

12-7. (5) the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which may be referred matters relating to federal estimates generally, the public accounts and reports of the Auditor General, and government finance generally . . .

It’s all inclusive. Thumbs up? Senator Clement, do you have a question?

Senator Clement: I would like to know the rationale between those last two pieces — integrating bullets and removing them.

[Translation]

The Chair: It could be “the national finance in general,” but in practice, the finance committee often looks at what departments are doing. It reviews the estimates, so it’s very much tied to them. Oftentimes, the officials wonder why they have to answer for that, so we thought we would incorporate it. Maybe the clerks could answer that for you, Adam Thompson in particular.

[English]

Mr. Thompson: Senator, I can build on that. The reality of how the committee operates is that it’s more than simply a numbers situation. It often looks at government operations, and it’s very similar in some respects to some of that oversight function that is performed by the work of the Auditor General, hence their mandate supports the work of the Auditor General.

I think the intent was to encapsulate some of that, other than a more general statement. Again, this is for your consideration, and our intent is to ensure that the mandates reflect the work that you hope the committees want to accomplish and that the committees themselves would want to accomplish.

[Translation]

The Chair: At any rate, the wording isn’t open-ended because it ends with public finance issues in general.

[English]

12-7. (6) the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which may be referred matters relating to transport and communications generally, including:

(a) transport and communications by any means,

(b) tourist traffic,

(d) navigation, shipping and navigable waters . . .

[Translation]

What has been suggested is that the bulleted list be removed and the mandate would be written as follows:

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which may be referred matters relating to transport and communications generally.

Are you okay with that?

[English]

12-7. (7) the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which may be referred matters relating to legal and constitutional matters generally, including:

(a) federal-provincial relations,

(b) administration of justice, law reform and any related matters,

(d) all essentially juridical matters, and

(e) private bills not specifically assigned to another committee, including those related to marriage and divorce . . .

[Translation]

What has been suggested is that the bulleted list of items be removed, and the wording would be:

[English]

12-7. (7) the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which may be referred matters relating to legal and constitutional matters generally . . .

Senator Wells: I’m supportive of this. It goes back to my earlier comment about not being limited in what committees can accept or send. Any time you make a list, it automatically excludes everything outside the list. We’ve always had flexibility with our committees, but I think it’s always better to be more general.

The Chair: Thank you. Now, moving on to the Banking Committee.

12-7. (8) the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, to which may be referred matters relating to banking, trade and commerce generally, including:

(a) banking, insurance, trust and loan companies, credit societies, caisses populaires and small loans companies,

(b) customs and excise,

(d) patents and royalties,

(e) corporate affairs, and

(f) bankruptcy . . .

Here, the suggestion is to remove the bulleted list and add “the economy” in general. There is also an issue about the French and English in this title. I will read what is proposed in the English:

12-7. (8) the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade, Commerce and the Economy, to which may be referred matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally . . .

The suggestion to add “the economy” is to reflect the original purpose of this committee, which was one of the first created in the Senate. At the time, the main economic issue was the circulation of money. We had no central bank. As you know, at that time Canadian dollars were printed by different private banks. We needed to have a financial system that was really sound to ensure the growth of our economy, the development of each province and so forth. Adding “the economy” in general spells out the general purpose, and the fact that, in practice, the Banking Committee can examine other things than just financial institutions. It could address more general issues in investment, productivity and so forth.

Are there any comments or questions on that? I will also point out to you that there is a difference between the French and the English. We left it there. In the French version, there is no translation for “trade” because the French word “commerce” includes trade. It should include it too in the English version, but we left it there.

Senator Wells: Just on the question of trade and commerce, there is a slight difference — I mean, commerce includes trade, but the word “trade” is not exclusive to commerce. When I think of trade, especially from a national point of view, I think of trade with other countries. I know it could be interprovincial trade or generally mercantile trade, which in those cases is commerce. I don’t really know. I know we shouldn’t be limiting, and I certainly know we shouldn’t be redundant, but I think in general commerce covers trade.

The Chair: If it brings some clarity, this is why we left it there, even though it’s not translated in the French. It’s commerce in French.

Senator Duncan: If I heard correctly, Senator Wells said “trade” could also be eliminated from the English version. I just wanted clarity on that because we specify that in the name of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. “Trade” is specified there as a distinct item, and there it’s referenced in the French, I believe, as commerce international. So would it not be acceptable to have “commerce” in both the English and the French and eliminate the “trade”? I think that’s what I heard Senator Wells say.

The Chair: Okay. I have no quarrel with that; on the contrary. If this is the suggestion, we’ll remove the term “trade” from the English version. Agreed? Thank you.

That brings us to 12-7(9):

. . . the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which may be referred matters relating to social affairs, science and technology generally, including:

(a) cultural affairs and the arts,

(b) social and labour matters,

(d) pensions,

(e) housing,

(f) fitness and amateur sport,

(g) employment and immigration,

(h) consumer affairs, and,

(i) youth affairs . . .

So the proposition is to remove that bulleted list and to leave it general. It would read:

. . . the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which may be referred matters relating to social affairs, science and technology generally . . .

Is it agreeable? Yes. Thank you.

12-7. (10) the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which may be referred matters relating to agriculture and forestry generally, and the Canadian Wheat Board . . .

Here, the modification is to remove “the Canadian Wheat Board” and to add it generally:

12-7. (10) the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which may be referred matters relating to agriculture and forestry generally . . .

Senator Batters: Thank you. I was having some technical problems, so I wasn’t able to join until just now, but just in time, I would like to wholeheartedly agree with removing “the Canadian Wheat Board” from this particular part.

The Chair: Thank you.

12-7. (11) the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to which may be referred matters relating to fisheries and oceans generally . . .

No modification is required to that committee’s mandate.

12-7. (12) the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which may be referred matters relating to energy, the environment and natural resources generally, including:

(a) mines and natural resources, other than fisheries and forestry

(b) pipelines, transmission lines and energy transportation

(d) other energy-related matters . . .

The proposition here is to remove the bulleted list and to add “climate change” to the definition so that it would read as follows:

12-7. (12) the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change, to which may be referred matters relating to energy, the environment, natural resources and climate change generally . . .

Senator Wells: This goes back to my earlier comment about leaving it more general. I recognize climate change is important and real and all of that, but that is fully covered under the environment. In fact, if there’s not a more significant topic under the environment umbrella, it’s climate change. So I think if we have “climate change” and “environment,” there is a redundancy there. Climate change is obviously covered under the full rubric of the environment. I would suggest we remove climate change — not to diminish it, but it’s already there under environment.

Senator Batters: I have a similar comment to that. I might suggest that, because it’s already an extremely long committee name as it is, to take “climate change” out of the committee name. If it’s desired, it could be potentially kept in the short, descriptive part where it has been added in. That might be fine to leave it there, but I would suggest to take it out and not have it as part of the actual title.

Senator Lankin: Both of those comments were helpful. I agree with Senator Batters’ proposal to take it out of the committee name but leave it in the phrase about it being referred to generally.

The Chair: Would you agree with that, Senator Wells? Okay, so we will. Perfect.

12-7. (13) the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which may be referred matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada . . .

Here the required change is in English. It has been requested by the Indigenous peoples working group in the Senate. They proposed to use “Indigenous” instead of “Aboriginal,” which is a more appropriate wording, actually, at the international level. So we propose to modify it in the English version, while, in French, Autochtone would stay the same. The English would read:

12-7. (13) the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, to which may be referred matters relating to the Indigenous peoples of Canada . . .

Do you agree? Perfect. We will make the change.

12-7. (14) the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, to which may be referred matters relating to human rights generally . . .

No modification is required. Thumbs up for that, too.

12-7. (15) the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which may be referred matters relating to national defence and security generally, including veterans affairs . . .

The proposition is to add “veterans affairs” in the first part of the mandate. It would read:

12-7. (15) the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence, and Veterans Affairs, to which may be referred matters relating to national security, defence and veterans affairs generally . . .

As I understand it, the explanation for this move — and Adam can confirm it — is that the veterans would feel more embraced if we add it in this bigger title than to have it only in the description.

Do you have something to add, Adam, Till or Shaila?

Mr. Thompson: There has long been a debate as far as the position of veterans affairs within this committee. It has been a long-standing subcommittee, but there have been many discussions about whether or not that should continue or whether it should become its own standing committee. But at this point, it is being incorporated into the title of the main committee to give the issue more prominence.

Historically speaking, prior to the creation of the National Security and Defence Committee this would actually have been a bulleted list [Technical difficulties].

Senator Busson: I just want to be on the record and endorse that change for all the reasons you and Adam detailed.

The Chair: So is it agreed that we leave it? Thumbs up. Perfect. Okay.

12-7. (16) The Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, which shall be authorized:

(a) to exercise general direction over the Senate Ethics Officer, and

(b) to be responsible, on its own initiative, for all matters relating to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, including all forms involving Senators that are used in its administration, subject to the general jurisdiction of the Senate . . .

Is there something missing? No. No modification is required for that description. The reason is the same. It’s a committee that can have its own initiative so, the mandate is precise.

The same applies to the next committee:

12-7. (17) the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, which, for the purposes of integrity, independence, transparency and accountability, shall be authorized, on its own initiative, to:

(a) retain the services of and oversee the external auditors and internal auditors;

(b) supervise the Senate’s internal and external audits;

(d) review the Senate Administration’s action plans to ensure:

(i) that they adequately address the recommendations and findings arising from internal and external audits, and

(ii) that they are effectively implemented;

(e) review the Senate’s Quarterly Financial Reports and the audited Financial Statements, and report them to the Senate; and

(f) report at least annually with observations and recommendations to the Senate.

Senator Black: I concur with it. We have been taking out bullet points, so we may be questioned about why we are leaving these in. I fully understand; it’s tough to cover all those points in a general statement, but we might want to be prepared.

Also, should we correct the (i) and the (ii)? We have (d)(i) and (d)(ii). Should that be sorted out to clarify that? Those are my comments.

Senator Wells: Senator Black, those are great comments. The reason it’s specified is because the Audit and Oversight Committee has specific duties, not of a general nature, but very specific duties, such as the review of financial plans and quarterly financial statements. Also — and perhaps the key one — is that a lot of the things — I think there were eight specific things that Audit and Oversight took over from CIBA when Audit and Oversight was created. So there had to be a delineation of those specific activities. I would say that is probably the biggest reason they’re listed like that.

Senator Black: I appreciate that. Let’s get that in our speaking notes if we’re expected to take it to our groups and caucuses.

Senator Lankin: It just struck me. This would be a matter for another time, but I thought maybe we should take those four committees and put them either at the beginning of the list or the end of the list, but where they’re in order together and they’re in sequence because they all make reference to their own initiatives. Having said that, I went on to think about all the changes that would have to be made in the companion books and explanations, so maybe it’s not such a good idea; but again, as Senator Black said, in our explanations, we can be very clear on the record for the history of these changes, why those committees stand apart and are separate.

The Chair: So, I guess we have concluded step one of our review.

Senator Clement: I want to come back to a point and register disagreement, actually, on the title of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change. I just want to understand: We’re removing that from the title but keeping it in the document. I think titles matter. I think they signal change. If we’re truly talking about modernization and the fact that we understand that climate change is the lens through which we see many things, particularly in that committee, I would want to see that remain in the title.

I know we’re moving by consensus here, but I do want to register that. I don’t agree with removing that from the title.

The Chair: Senator Clement, just so we are clear, what you said is not actually in the title.

Senator Clement: Okay.

The Chair: And the proposition was to include climate change because it was not in the title and it was not in any specification of that committee. So the proposition was to add it twice in the description, in the first part of the sentence and in the second part of the sentence. So what you’re saying is that you would like to go with the initial proposal and not to have it only once. Because actually it’s nowhere.

Senator Clement: Right. I would want to see it in the title, exactly.

Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. I am a guest and so I respect the work, of course, from meeting to meeting. As I reviewed this document, the comment that Senator Lankin made just a moment ago really resonated for me from a general — if we’re looking at these rules and subtle changes and more significant changes, how it’s laid out and how things are chunked and organized together is what jumps out at me for the purpose of today’s meeting. So I hear it might involve some adjustments elsewhere, but I’ve always felt if we could bring those groups and committees together visually, I think it helps us better understand our committees and the connections in and amongst committees.

I think Senator Lankin knows more the implications of making a statement like that, but I also think part of the responsibility is how we do take these rules and organize them best for folks who are not heavily immersed in them.

Mr. Heyde: Just in terms of the ordering, historically the way the Rules had been organized before 2011 had been — let me just double check that I’ve got this right. I believe it had been the joint committees, the self-initiating committees and then the other committees. I’m just going to confirm that. In the work that this committee undertook leading up to the rule changes that took effect in 2012 to give the current structure to the Rules, which were really significant changes, there had been at one point a hope that we would be able to have alphabetical orders for the committees. That was obviously impossible, given the nature of the two languages, because if you chose the English order, you would put the French order subordinate; if you chose the French order, you put the English order subordinate.

So there was a decision at that time to keep the ordering as it was at the time. Certainly, the original order — I have it now, as they were in the Rules before 2012. It was the joint committees. Then the only two committees at the time that could self-initiate their work, and then followed by the other committees.

Certainly, you might want to consider turning toward that logic. What has happened since then is that new committees are added to the bottom of the list. The two most recent are self-initiating committees. That would be the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, followed by the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight. There might be a logic to returning to the historical pattern of having the self-initiating committees first, with the four of them there, followed by the other committees.

I’m not overly concerned about the cross-referencing. Senator Lankin, thank you very much for thinking of that. We are not yet at the stage where we’re ready to publish one of the documents, so this would be the time to do it. There’s a bit of a window now. We’re wrapping up the new edition of the Companion. It will be ready to publish soon, but it isn’t quite yet at that point. We could certainly make those changes first.

Historically there was a logic of having the self-initiators go first, followed by those that need orders of reference from the Senate. Thank you.

Senator Ringuette: I would like to bring a specific mandate for the Committee of Selection to your attention, and that is the nomination of the Speaker pro tempore.

In this Parliament and during the last one, we experienced the nomination of the Speaker pro tempore by election. I certainly would like for us to entertain the idea of new rules in regard to the “election” of the Speaker pro tempore.

I’m leaving this to your guidance as to when you would like for this to happen in our discussions, whether within this first phase or a new phase. Maybe members of our committee have comments regarding their preference. I’m just highlighting this issue.

The Chair: Before turning to Senator Duncan, I would like to say that is an issue that the steering subcommittee has decided is a priority. We have asked the clerks to work on the wording.

The Selection Committee is not part of 12-7. It’s not a permanent standing committee, so it’s not there. However, this question of the election of the Speaker pro tempore is being addressed now and being worked on. After we go through 12-7, we’ll go into this issue in future meetings.

Senator Duncan: I apologize. I need to go back to page 2, to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We generally agreed quickly, I believe, to the change, “ . . . to which may be referred matters related to foreign or Commonwealth relations generally . . . .”

I’m concerned about the focus on Commonwealth relations when our largest international trading partner, I believe, is due south of us. I think it should be “relating to foreign or international relations” generally, rather than singling out the Commonwealth. This is not a political expression one way or another, but the Commonwealth is changing, and it doesn’t mean as much, perhaps, to the younger generation as the use of the word “international” would.

It’s just a comment. I do have a concern, and I apologize for not getting that in earlier when we were discussing it. I wasn’t quite quick enough this morning. Thank you.

The Chair: That is a good comment. I don’t know if Till has a comment on that, or Adam or Shaila.

Mr. Heyde: If I may, I believe it would date back, as Senator Duncan noted, to the time when it was very explicit in people’s minds that the Commonwealth was not foreign. Obviously, there has been a significant evolution in recent years. I’m just looking for some historical Rules here.

In 1969, it was the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, composed of 30 members. It mentions treaties and international agreements, external trade, foreign aid, defence immigration, territorial and offshore matters. Then, there was a reference “ . . . to which may be referred messages, petitions inquiries, papers and other matters relating to foreign and Commonwealth relations generally including . . . .” and I believe in 1964, when I looked at that a few days ago — I can’t find the reference right now — it made reference to “external relations,” the old idea of the department of external affairs including both foreign and Commonwealth relations. However, there’s been a shift in that. That’s the historical roots of that. Whether you wish to pursue the idea that Senator Duncan has expressed is certainly something for the committee to decide on.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Senator Duncan. When we read it, I thought the same thing, that Commonwealth would be a little bit more limiting and that the world has become a much smaller place since the 1960s — communications, transportation and all of those things. I think “international” would probably be a better fit.

We look now at Ukraine, which would be an example of that in 2022. I like the word “international.”

The Chair: Do you all agree with changing “Commonwealth” to “international?” Okay, we’ll do that. Thank you very much.

Senator Duncan: Excuse me, but if it reads “ . . . may be referred to matters relating to foreign or international . . .” that’s the same thing, is it not?

The Chair: In the title, it’s Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Senator Duncan: I see. Thank you.

The Chair: To go back to climate change, if I may, I would like to make a suggestion to Senator Clement.

It’s interesting to have climate change in the full title, but having it twice in the title may signal its exclusivity to this committee when we don’t want to preclude other committees, like the Agriculture Committee, from studying climate change issues. To spell it out in the items signals that, for climate change generally, the big issues go to this committee, but it’s not exclusive to this committee to study all climate change issues, because there might be issues relating to climate change that are specific to other committees.

I hope that gives clarity as to why it should be there only once. I propose that if we have those words in the title, it would be too narrow and limit other committees from studying climate change issues. This document will circulate among your groups, so some comments will arise at the next meeting, and we could make changes then.

Would you agree that, for the moment, we keep it only once as was suggested and agreed on?

Senator Clement: Well, I would like to pursue the conversation, and I understand that I would have to talk about it within my group. I just have a different view of what a title says, and I see it more as a signal and not as an exclusion that will then send a signal to other committees that they’re not to deal with it. I don’t quite see it the same way, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Perfect. For now, maybe we can keep a single copy and pass it around, and we can discuss the comments you will gather at our next meeting to come up with a report. For now, it’s about doing an initial review of this document. We will do a second review as we consult each of the committees. The document will then come back to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. After that, the suggested changes will be analyzed and the document may be used for a report, our first report, to the Senate, which will be step one. Further changes may come thereafter, with respect to step two of our review.

Senator Clement: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: The aim is to have a report with those stylistic changes at some point in time in this session. We will start now with rule 12-7. If you are in agreement, we can have a general discussion about the step two proposition. I’m sure we’ll have to come back to step two before going to a consultation, but having that on the table at least starts the debate at the more general level.

Senator Wells: I’m going to be dropping off the call now. It is unavoidable for me. I didn’t want to disappear before saying thank you for chairing this meeting and to my colleagues for their good work.

The Chair: Thank you.

We can start with step two. You have it in your document.

Step two proposes the addition of two committees. If those two committees are accepted, then some correlative changes have to be made to other items under rule 12-7.

To be clear, I will read what we have as a proposition for the two new committees. One would be the standing Senate committee on communications, science and technology, “to which may be referred matters relating to science, technology and communications generally . . .” which comes from the informal group that was thinking about committees. They took a part of the Transportation and Communications Committee. Since communications now takes up a lot of space in our lives, and as technology and science are related to communications, the idea was to join those into a new committee.

Senator Cordy and Senator Busson were part of the debate on those issues, so I will let them explain the purpose of this new committee.

Senator Cordy: We looked at how communications have changed dramatically since the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, and when we looked at the mandate for the Transportation and Communications Committee, it was a pretty broad field. I think I’ve told you this before, but part of the mandate for that committee was the telegraph. Communications have certainly come a long way since then. We get very little when we go to pick up our mail in our little mailboxes. It tends to be mainly flyers because we get most things through the internet and through email. That was our rationale for doing it.

Science and technology was part of the Social Affairs Committee. I’ve been on that committee for a very long time, and it was very rare that we did anything — maybe occasionally, particularly when we had a scientist, Dr. Ogilvie, who was the chair of the committee. Other than that, it was mainly dealing with social issues at the Social Affairs Committee. We felt with the changes coming so quickly in communications that it should be a stand-alone committee.

I’ll deal with that one for now, then we can look at the other one.

Senator Lankin: I would defer to Senator Busson first. I had a more general comment, if Senator Busson wants to add to those comments of Senator Cordy.

Senator Busson: Thank you, Senator Lankin.

I don’t have much to add except the fact that we talk about standardization and modernization. That committee certainly needs to be tuned up to show that we are clearly addressing the 21st century. I think Senator Cordy did a very good job of explaining why. That’s my addition to those comments.

Senator Lankin: I generally support this proposal. I want to make a comment that the agenda at the Social Affairs Committee is regularly backed up with bills, let alone studies being referred to it. So there is a logic in terms of workload and workflow as well.

I think the last science and technology-related study that committee did was when Senator Ogilvie was still in the Senate. It was related to artificial intelligence, if I recall. It’s a few years back now.

I think it would also help us, Madam Chair, if you could explain — or perhaps Senator Cordy or Senator Busson, along with Senator Forest-Niesing, who did some of the background work on this — what conversations were held with the chairs of these particular committees so we have a sense of whether there was any discussion and general agreement there. I recognize we’re going to take this back in consultation and we’ll discuss it in our groups, but I think that some of the cross-chair and deputy chair discussion would be helpful too. We may not have all of that within any one group to hear those opinions of people who have been playing a leadership role in those committees.

Could you also expand on what the consultation process has been or will be on this, so that we know that people who are the closest to it have given it a blessing?

Senator Cordy: The challenge, Senator Lankin, is that we were a sub-working group of a working group on modernization. Senator Griffin was also a member of that working group. We didn’t have the authority to call in witnesses as you would with a committee. We just had a lot of discussions and informal conversations with people within our groups or people who might have been on the committees that we were looking at.

In terms of having documents related to people appearing before us, we were a sub-working group of a working group, if there is even such a thing as a sub-working group of a working group.

Senator Busson: I wanted to add a small comment. The work of looking at these mandates was a very seriously followed project of Senator Forest-Niesing. I know from conversations with her — and, of course, we can’t check with her now — that she did reach out to numerous committees, committee members and chairs. She did her work to build the groundswell and foundation of moving forward with committees. As Senator Cordy said, there were no formal records that were placed before anyone from witnesses, et cetera.

The Chair: So it is certain that, when we proceed further in our discussions, we will need witnesses on those issues. Today, we have an experience of the zest of the issue that we are dealing with here.

Senator Batters: My comments on this are general in nature.

First of all, I am curious to hear what the thoughts of different people who have chair positions and who have served on those committees for a long time would be, like Senator Housakos, who is normally part of this committee. I know he had the same sort of Zoom technology issues that I did this morning; I think that’s why he’s not able to be with us, because he could not get them resolved. It took me a while too. Given that he’s the chair of the Transport and Communications Committee now, I would be interested to hear his remarks and the remarks of others.

Transport and Communications is a committee I’ve occasionally subbed in on during the last nine years that I have been in the Senate; Social Affairs, maybe rarely, maybe not at all. I don’t have as much experience with that committee.

I was a little surprised to hear Senator Cordy’s comments that she didn’t recall too many times when science or technology issues come before that committee. I thought there were more times. To me, it seemed like a good fit to have those particular topics together. Transport and communications, yes, that’s probably a little bit of a days-gone-by pairing, but sometimes it seems to make sense at that particular committee.

I’m not generally in favour of expanding the number of committees we have. I think we already have a substantial number of committees. What we see when we have more, first of all, is we don’t have an extremely large group of senators to draw from. The more committees you have, the more people who will have to serve on three and potentially four committees in order to have enough senators to populate those committees.

Also, as we’ve seen throughout the situation with Zoom, there are limited time slots that you can have, especially when you’re doing it with Zoom. We have to always worry about the resources that are being used and sharing them with the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we get the short end of the stick on that sort of thing.

There is the potential expense of it, having more committees, when maybe there’s not necessarily the reason to expand it. There’s all of these different things that we need to consider in that particular equation.

Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments.

Senator Ringuette: I heard Senator Cordy and Senator Busson. I would like to say that, at least for me, I make a distinction between science and technology. When I talk about science, in my mind it is mostly related to health issues, health research, biotechnology and so forth; then for technology, I relate it more to the new internet development of businesses, communications, social media and so forth.

My preference would certainly be to keep science within the Social Affairs Committee. There wouldn’t even be a new committee. I see that it should be the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, because there is a direct link between transport and communications, either in reality or virtually, and technology is related to those two spheres of transportation and communications.

In reality, we would not be constituting new committees but giving it a new reality for 2022 in regard to its focus and mandate.

This is my two cents worth. I reiterate that the entire issue of science, health and fitness should be kept within the Social Affairs Committee. I find that science should be kept with the Social Affairs Committee, and in this not new, but redefined, committee, it should be the committee on transportation, communications and technology.

Thank you.

The Chair: That is a clear proposition. We certainly will have witnesses to debate those issues because every comment that we have heard is quite relevant.

If there are no more senators who want to express themselves on the issue of this committee, then we’ll go to the other new committee that is also proposed.

Senator Duncan: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to address this issue of communications as part of the committee’s mandate.

I noted the description of the movement of people between countries. What we’re now seeing as a key issue, particularly in the last few days, is the movement of information; the transfer of information between countries is critically important. This relates to technology as well.

I feel that we should be concerned about the movement of information and misinformation related to the discussion of technology between countries. I believe that should be added to our discussion of a mandate for a committee on communications.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator M. Deacon: On this conversation, to come back to the Social Affairs Committee and the intent of adding a committee, certainly concerns about more committees, this was one that I’ve observed and experienced since I’ve come into the Senate; I’m not going to call it a logjam, but at its present status, yes, very little has been done with technology and innovation in the Social Affairs Committee for sure.

My wonder, though, when I’m thinking about and listening to these solutions, is the technology is a piece, and the innovation aspect that is not just technology — they’re not mutually inclusive, they’re quite exclusive and cross over — is where that will be held strongest.

Once you start to possibly make the Transport and Communications Committee bigger, I’m concerned about that because I see the two of them — technology and innovation — as really not being at the centre of where they need to be.

Thank you.

Senator Lankin: First, I’m going to ask if we could get a little bit of information to accompany the documentation that gets sent out to us to consult with our groups on.

On the workload issues, the flow of work and referrals to different committees, I’m wondering if there could be an analysis around these two committees in particular to take a look pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. I don’t think it’s fair to look straight through because during the pandemic we’ve had a lot more bills related to support programs for individuals, et cetera, that have been referred to that committee, so it has been very busy.

I know there is a backlog of suggestions to be discussed and determined, which have merit and which may go elsewhere for study, and there is no time. It is just one bill after another.

I would like us to do a comparative analysis that might help us look at workflow issues.

I agree with Senator Deacon, who has raised the issue of innovation. It’s part of the broader look at the economy, but science, technology and innovation have a resonance together that most people understand. While we know that innovation doesn’t need to involve technology, most often it will these days.

I like the proposal that’s before us, but I think there’s discussion to be had around it and I think a bit of comparative data would help us. We know that there are other committees that have very little workload and mainly do studies, and that’s wonderful. But if we need to have another place to focus on, I think some of the issues Senator Batters has raised — budgets and workflow and whether we would have to reduce the number of senators on each committee so that we have a greater pool of senators for allocation — those things would flow from such a decision. However, I would like to keep this possibility on the table while we consult with our groups and add a bit of background and comparative information to be of assistance to us in that consideration.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin. I completely agree with you that we need some background to see where the bills go, where the studies were, but also to recognize that when you don’t have a committee on an issue, certainly you won’t find anything in the background because it’s not expressed anywhere.

We certainly need to look at how the workload is distributed among the actual committees, as well as the workload on each senator. Keeping that in mind, we’ll be able to gain information that would be useful in further discussions on those issues.

For the moment, I would like for us to address the second committee that is proposed, which is a standing Senate committee on human resources, “to which may be referred matters relating to human capital, labour markets and employment generally . . . .”

Where does it come from? Personally, I’ve always had an interest in that. That’s one of the reasons, but it’s not the main reason. The main reason is that we had a motion on that issue, put forward by Senator Ringuette, and we had a motion for studies put forward by Senator Lankin.

Starting with Senator Ringuette, I would like them to express why we should have that kind of a committee. Because there is no such committee, it is surely difficult to have a lot of background on that.

Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I don’t have a prepared speech, except to say the following: Right now, the only place in our standing committees that we see anything relating to labour is under the Social Affairs Committee, with labour matters. On the other hand, whatever other committees we have, they do not and could not exist as a matter of study if not for the human resources behind them; you can’t talk about transportation without acknowledging the human factor.

I’m sorry to say that we are behind with regard to having a committee on human resources. We should have had a committee on this very important issue since the creation of the Senate. Every time we have a human relations question in front of us, we’re always reacting. We have never been proactive on human resources.

When major changes were considered in relation to EI — or, at the time, UI — we didn’t have a committee that understood the fundamental challenges. We were limited. Most of the time when we have legislation with regard to these issues, it’s within a budget bill, an omnibus budget bill.

We need a dedicated committee. The challenge we have with regard to the labour market is probably the second-biggest one we will have over the next few decades. I think the Senate needs to start to look at the issues, whether it’s Senator Lankin’s issue of the gig economy or the issue of temporary foreign workers, whom we definitely need with regard to our agriculture and all our processing.

It would be a start to concentrate on what is the biggest asset we have in Canada; in my perspective, that is our human capital. It is high time we have a standing committee that would look at all the issues facing our major asset.

If I need to make a speech for our next round, I would be happy to gather some data. But I believe that all of you who are current with regard to the issues facing our country understand that the labour issue — the labour market and immigration — is the most important.

That is my five-minute pitch. I must say that the major disappointment from my 19 years in the Senate is that we have never dedicated ourselves to the issue of our human capital. I believe that is a sorry story with regard to the Senate of Canada. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Ringuette. I fully share your opinion on that.

[English]

I really think that the human factor is a consideration we should have because it is at the heart of the wealth-creation process and also the distribution process. Many issues are provincial, but a lot of issues exist across the country. The federal government has a role to play. Federally, EI is the biggest program and has ramifications in every home — if not directly, then indirectly.

Senator Lankin: Briefly, I want to say that I think this is the most important proposal before us in this section. As we’ve gone through the pandemic, we have seen the crises in terms of staffing and human resource practices, requirements, et cetera, in some of the most public-facing and critical service industries, whether they be retail service — grocery stores, et cetera — or public services, such as health and hospitals. We have seen the impact there. In my view, part of what’s behind that is a continuation of ping-ponging between federal and provincial jurisdictional levels on issues.

For example, training at one time was federal jurisdiction and then it was devolved to the provinces, and now it’s a patchwork across the country. Strategies often take heart starting at the federal level with federal-provincial discussions where the federal government is prepared to put resources to back it up. I have been receiving calls from different associations. This morning I spoke to the president of the Canadian Association of Radiologists. Those calls often are about recruitment, retention and immigration strategies. Training writ large is huge. Even while, except for federally regulated employees, employment standards are dealt with within the provinces, the trends in terms of work, like the payment of work, individualizing that to algorithms, and other sorts of things like the loss of control within the employer-employee relationship, are an international phenomenon. Other jurisdictions have delved into this and are bringing laws and structures forward.

There is a huge amount of work there, and I agree with how Senator Ringuette puts it in terms of our largest and most important capital is people. We touch on it at the Social Affairs Committee, but we never really delve into it deeply, and we never really have the conversations about what a go-forward strategy or plan could recommend to the federal government in trying to initiate some new and far-reaching work there.

I’m very much in favour of this. I look forward to the conversations in our group. I hope this is one we could land on. It would be a great contribution to the work of the Senate.

Senator Cordy: Senator Busson and I brought all these things forward not to say, “this is what you absolutely have to do,” but it was to generate a dialogue. I’m really pleased that has happened today and it is the start of something. We care but our feeling is that this is a decision to be made by this group and by the Senate. Our purpose was to bring these things forward, so thank you very much for that.

We talked about dividing the Transport and Communications Committee, and again, that’s up to this committee whether or not to make that recommendation. One of the international NATO committees I was on was doing a paper on bots, which are commonly used by the Russians to push misinformation. I had never even heard of a bot a couple of years ago when I was asked to do this paper. I thought, “Oh, my God, how am I going to do a paper on something I’ve never heard of?” Things are changing so dramatically on that.

In terms of human resources, it is the same thing. Things have changed so dramatically. In Nova Scotia there are signs everywhere, particularly in the service industries. Fast-food chains that used to have menus on their outside posters and lit-up signs are now using those to tell people to come in and apply for jobs and that the jobs are available today. If you want to walk in today and apply for the job, you’ve got it today. Recruitment, retention, all those types of things are important to look at.

I look forward to having witnesses on both committees. If they’re both turned down, Senator Busson and I won’t be upset by it, but we do think it’s important to have those discussions. Thank you all very much for listening and understanding that they are things that we should at least look at.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Cordy. Let me sum up what I have heard.

First of all, for our next meeting, we will have some background ideas or background data or background on the numbers of bills studied by committees and the number of hours that were done by each committee so that we’ll have a more general idea about how we work in our committees. Maybe we’ll have some questions about rationalizing the work that we actually do because we have many committees. Not every committee meets twice a week; some meet once. Maybe we could rationalize the hours. Maybe that is a question to look at; even though it’s not in our mandate, it involves the Selection Committee to work on the scheduling. So we’ll have a list of questions.

We’ll think about possible witnesses to bring forward to talk about the creation of those two committees, and I also want to encourage senators, when you consult on step one, please also consult on step two for the creation of those two committees within your group so that you can bring forward the reactions among other senators and, if some ideas come up, to be able to rationalize our work, because we have some constraints. We have resource and financial constraints, but as Senator Batters said, each senator cannot sit on three or four committees if we want to do a good job. We have some limits and constraints, but we have new needs that are expressed and that are really important. The two proposed committees address those needs. We need to study those issues. It is very important.

For that, this is what I heard. This is what the steering committee will look at before the committee next meets. Our next meeting will be after the break. We have a two-week break. When we come back, if we’re not ready yet, at least I hope we will be for step one. We may also be ready for a motion on the Speaker pro tempore. That will go forward, so in our meeting we may have a couple of things to address.

Senator Black: As far as the Canadian Senators Group, we won’t be able to meet on this issue before our next meeting. Are you expecting to have discussion on March 21? Our group will not have met to discuss this issue by that time.

The Chair: Okay, we’ll have to take that into account.

Senator Black: Thank you.

The Chair: Maybe we will postpone a week and do other things. We’ll manage to take advantage of our meeting slot on Monday to progress on the list of items in front of us. We have many things to discuss. Today was a first start in public, and I think it went fairly well. I’m convinced that we’ll be able to advance on a lot of issues. Are there any comments? If not, then we can say goodbye and see you after the break.

Thank you very much for your participation. I think it was a nice meeting and we will resume in March. Thank you very much.

(The committee adjourned.)