THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 9, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 11:02 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules, and to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
My name is Diane Bellemare and I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. With us today are our two co-chairs, Senator Batters from Saskatchewan, and Senator Lankin from Ontario. We also have Senator Greene from Nova Scotia, Senator Audette from Quebec, Senator Black from Ontario, Senator Busson from British Columbia, Senator Deacon from Ontario, Senator Duncan from Yukon, Senator Massicotte from Quebec, Senator Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Senator Woo from British Columbia. Also with us as a special guest is Senator Petitclerc from Quebec.
We have a few brief news items. The budget bill we were waiting for has been introduced in Parliament. In Part 5, Division 13, we can see the desired amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that officially recognize our structure in the Senate, that is, the composition of the various groups of senators, the government representative in the Senate, and the leader of the opposition.
Because the bill has been studied, I assume it will come into force at that time.
We are also in the process of examining Motion No. 35 concerning returning to somewhat more normal hours. We will be updating you as soon as we know exactly where it stands. The Selection Committee met this morning and that question was on the agenda.
Today, we will be discussing two subjects. We will be continuing the discussion about creating two new committees: a committee on communications, science and technology, and a committee on human resources.
We would like, and I also hope, to be able to decide this before the summer break.
On that subject, we will be able to hear today from Senator Petitclerc, who we might say will suffer the consequences of creating these committees, as the former chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. So we are going to talk with her.
We are then going to discuss certain guiding principles that the steering committee has identified. We are submitting them to you today for discussion purposes.
To begin, I want to welcome Senator Petitclerc, who is going to say a few words. We can then discuss the creation of these new committees together. I see that Senator Cordy from Nova Scotia has just joined us.
I now give the floor to Senator Petitclerc.
Hon. Chantal Petitclerc, former Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Thank you, everyone. I would first like to say what a pleasure and privilege it is to accept this invitation and contribute to this very important discussion. Thank you for all the work you have done to standardize the names of our committees, but also for your efforts to reorganize and harmonize some of our committees so they better reflect the situation in our era.
I have read the transcripts of your meetings on February 28 and March 28, so I’m going to try briefly to contribute to your discussion of the workload of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and the wisdom of creating a new committee on science and technology and another on human resources.
I am appearing as the former chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I chaired that committee from 2018 to 2021. I have been a member of that committee since I came to the Senate in 2016 and for all those years I have had the privilege to be on its steering committee, chaired by Senators Ogilvie and Eggleton.
From my work in these various roles, I have observed that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology gets a lot of work because of the reach of its mandate, which covers a variety of fields and, incidentally, a very wide diversity of federal departments — we’re talking about at least 14 departments in the current cabinet. This partially explains its very heavy workload.
You know there are a lot of public policies that have a social dimension. Social affairs affect people’s everyday lives, and that explains the substantial volume of bills being studied and this committee’s desire to study other matters.
This is a committee that studies a lot of bills, with the priority being government bills, of course, but also a lot of private members’ bills.
I would like to add that on several occasions, at least while I was chair, bills that didn’t really fall within the mandate of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology were sent to the committee, because the Senate can refer any matter to any committee, if some committees are overloaded. For example, that was the case in 2019 with Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act. In that case, it was an issue that came under public safety. You may also remember Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), for which the Minister of Justice appeared before us. In both those cases, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs could have studied the bills, but it was very busy at that time.
Of course, and I mention it in spite of the fact that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology was getting requests from all sides, assurance of having more time to study bills, even when you’re asked, and especially for non-governmental matters, is never guaranteed — to the point that the steering committee often found itself having to prioritize and rationalize the little time it had. That’s why your concern for lightening this committee’s workload struck such a chord with me. I think it’s a matter of common sense: I think it is quite wise to transfer science and technology to a committee on communications, science and technology, that you are suggesting be created. I also think that creating a committee on human resources is a very, very good idea.
As I understand it, and as I believe, these are issues that are obviously very, very important, but also very current, and that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, for all the reasons I’ve stated, has spent very little time on in recent years. You have referred to this in meetings: the last time you talked about technology was thanks to the study initiated by Senator Ogilvie, which talked about technology, but also health. So there is little opportunity to do it. It’s not out of a lack of interest; it’s quite simply out of a lack of time.
I won’t spend a lot of time talking to you about the frustrations that members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology may feel, and conversations we’ve had about subjects we would have liked to delve deeper into, because those are subjects that were considered to be important and sometimes even crucial. Again, it was never because of a lack of interest or conviction or good will; it was definitely because of the lack of time.
I would also say that apart from the fact that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology doesn’t have enough time and is very busy, I think, and it’s very personal, that the Senate has a responsibility to ensure that insofar as possible, it is always in tune with the times. Our committees must not be out of step with the era we’re living in. In my opinion, that means that it’s clear that we have to find a way to make more room for technology and human resources.
I would also say that I’d like to share a few thoughts with you — in fact, to kind of put the question to you — because I’m wondering where health might fit in the proposed scenario. Let me explain: when I read over the transcripts and reviewed the proposed mandate for the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, if we leave aside the study of science and technology, its mandate would be more general, because it would be allowed to study matters relating to social affairs. I wondered who, on the pared-down Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology or the new committee on sciences, would be responsible for health. I think it’s important to specify that.
In your third report, you proposed to the Senate that the bullet-point list that gave more details be deleted and the general wording be retained, which I support, but it would be important to specify which of these two committees will be responsible for health generally. Health is a science, obviously, but we know that it involves a number of social aspects. Obviously, I’m biased when it comes to this and I won’t hide it. Personally, I would leave health to the pared-down Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, but I mainly want to offer these thoughts by way of inviting you to think about it and specify which committee health will belong to.
And on that, again, I would simply thank you for this opportunity and, of course, I am available for questions and clarifications.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for those very wise and very relevant comments, Senator Petitclerc.
To start, I can tell you straightaway what my impression was in terms of health when we studied the question. It was clear to us that health was going to stay with the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, because it is part of social affairs, and because when we talk about communications, science and technology, we’re really talking about innovations in communications and elsewhere, generally. I think it was clear that health went with social affairs. In fact, it involves everything that isn’t part of human resources and technology.
Obviously, as we know, because of the way we think of our committees, it’s always possible for two committees to study the same thing, but from a different angle. Health, as a general field, would stay with the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Madam Chair and Senator Petitclerc.
I have had a few discussions with different people on SOCI who have raised the same question you have. I think it’s a valid question. Certainly, the understanding that I bring to the discussion we had is that health, as the chair said, would remain with SOCI. There have been some suggestions that we should perhaps talk about health, health sciences and social affairs, or health, health sciences and social policy. There could a reference to make it clear.
The one thing that people were concerned about is if the word “science” appears someplace else, does that mean that health-based sciences, for example, wouldn’t come to the committee? I think that’s not the case. We know, for example, that science and technology will find its way into discussions at transportation, at energy and environment and at oceans. I mean, there are so many relevant points of science that will inform those discussions. As the chair said, for communications, science and technology, it allows us to both have a clear focus on the digital print, in print on communication, as well as the broader sort of innovation, science and technology matters.
With that clarification, does that make sense to you as a former chair? Is that something that you think would broadly address some of the concerns raised by members of SOCI? Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for your question, Senator Lankin. Yes, that does answer my question. Thank you for the clarification, Madam Chair.
However, I wonder whether, when we pare the descriptions down a bit... I don’t disagree with it. I think there is strength in keeping descriptions and mandates general, because that offers more opportunities. I quite agree with that. Except that in this case, as you said, Senator Lankin, science can come under several committees, even the science of health. If we decide to focus on the importance of fundamental research or subjects of that kind, those subjects may be reserved to the science and technology committee. In fact, this is more of a question: I wonder whether, to avoid confusion, we should make sure that health, since health often deals with health sciences... In fact, if the intention is that concerns and issues related to health remain with the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, should we find a way of expressing all that so that it is very clear to everyone?
The Chair: Thank you for the question and comment, Senator Petitclerc.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thanks for your presentation, Senator Petitclerc.
My first question focuses on the fact that since you have been on SOCI — and certainly in the Senate — some unusually massive government bills have been studied at SOCI. One was, of course, the marijuana legalization bill, and SOCI primarily carried the study of that bill. That went on for a very long time. There was a pre-study and then also an additional study later on. That was many weeks, I believe. As well, the first MAID bill, Bill C-14, happened shortly after you got to the Senate. That was also, I believe, primarily carried by SOCI. Other committees had smaller parts of it, but SOCI was the one that had the major carriage of it. That was unusual.
I’ve been in the Senate nine years. What I saw during the first probably four or five years of that time frame was that SOCI got many fewer government bills of that size and scope. I guess it’s a bit of an unusual scenario that the size of those bills would come forward at all. But my recollection of the first number of years that I was here was that SOCI did have much more time for studies and that kind of thing. Also, they did carry a lot more bills that could be studied much more quickly than those other bills of that magnitude.
Do you think that it’s possible, thinking back to the first few years you were in the Senate — aside from the first medical assistance in dying bill, C-14 — that there was more time for those types of things — studies and other things? Maybe some of what you’re recalling is the time frame when those bills took so much of SOCI’s efforts.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Well, I obviously have not been here that long. I have been here six years, so that’s my experience.
I do want to begin with voicing — because I think it’s important out of respect for all the different committees that we have — that I believe that all of our committees have the expertise, competence, capacity and will to do the work that is presented to them. This is what we have done at SOCI, and I am truly convinced that every committee that has a bill or a study referred to it has the competence, expertise, capacity and desire to do the job that is required.
Yes, we did receive some very important bills that required a lot of time to study. I believe that SOCI always did excellent work with these. I also believe that the leaders and the Senate in general were always there in support of SOCI or other committees to allow the extra time — extra hours — that we needed to do the work properly.
I am not quite sure directly what your question is about. If I look at the history of SOCI — the Kirby Report, the obesity study with Senator Ogilvie — it is true that the membership of SOCI, myself included, is looking forward to being able to embark on such deep studies. For the last few years, the pandemic and the load of legislative work have made it a little more challenging to do that. But that being said, I think it is the responsibility of the committee to answer to the demands that are made upon that committee. I believe that SOCI did and is doing an excellent job at that.
Senator Batters: Yes, I think they have as well, and certainly what my question was focusing on is this: Do we really need an additional committee to help alleviate some of the load on SOCI? For the last two years, we have had our committees — all of our committees — dramatically curtailed from COVID and lack of available resources, like committee slots. Prior to all that, as I was just pointing out, there were some unusually massive legislative studies that went to SOCI. That’s very unusual. Maybe our thinking about needing a new committee to take some pressure off is actually the by-product of this unusual workload with some of those major legislative items plus the last two years of the pandemic.
Senator Petitclerc: I think, in the end, the government bills and legislation that come to a committee — this one or others — will be a priority. My point was really that when you look at the mandate of SOCI — which is very wide — except for the time that Senator Ogilvie proposed the study on technology in the health system, we have not tackled many of the issues that were under SOCI. That is even during the periods that you mentioned.
My point is, those issues are very crucial. They are very important, even more so now. I believe we cannot not address technology, for example. I don’t have the answer on how we find a way to make sure this happens, but we need to find a way to make sure this happens. That is my point.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning to all. Thank you, Senator Petitclerc, for being on the seat today.
I did have a question that was a little bit similar to that of my previous colleague, Senator Batters. I have been thinking a lot about this. We can only go back on our experiences, as you have noted. As I landed in the Senate, we went right into cannabis — not literally, but the bill — and I think of the overwhelming number of witnesses and depth that was done over a few months. I think about that bill and also MAID and the accessibility act, just as examples. I wonder, from a chair’s or a former chair’s perspective, if you look back now, if the committees had been organized any differently with technology and science perhaps elsewhere, are there pieces or parts of some of the work that you did in SOCI that actually may have been embraced elsewhere? I’ll ask that question first, because I have a part B to it.
Senator Petitclerc: I would think so. I would think that if, for example, the model that is discussed now would allow for having other studies in the area of technology and science, it would be a plus value for the Senate. More than a plus value, I think it’s our responsibility to tackle those issues. It is true that it was very challenging to try and do that while studying the examples that you mentioned of MAID or the Cannabis Act. It was very difficult to have those more in-depth studies. Of course, you can have a subcommittee as well, which we did not have at the time. So yes, my thinking and my impression is that this would allow for those studies and those issues, maybe, to be addressed.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that.
Sitting on that committee, I wondered how we would ever get to the areas we call technology, innovation and science. I would just sit there and think that we’re not going to get there. But one of the other pieces is perhaps the filter and the lens that we can also be using on existing committees. When they are looking at bills on the innovation, global competitiveness and technology aspects, are there ways that this can also be built in better across committees? Those are the things that I have been trying to think about, particularly after we know the abundance of work that’s going to continue in social affairs. What I’m really getting at is efficiency, to be candid.
Senator Petitclerc: It is very interesting. When I was reading some of the transcripts of the committee, I believe it was Senator Batters who mentioned how important it is to keep mandates general enough so that many committees, if they so wish, can find a way to study something that perhaps could be studied from a different angle in a different committee. I think there is value in that. There is richness in having different committees embarking on studies with their own angle and focus. It is one way to be more efficient or to produce more studies.
As a member of different committees and as a former chair, I think we all agree that many of us are wishing to be able to do more studies, because we know the value of those studies. We know how they are used and how they stand the passage of time. In my former life in the area of sport and even today, I hear people talk about the obesity study that was done in the Senate.
We do want to create a structure of efficiency and an environment where we are able to manage the load of the legislation that is in front of us and be the most effective, but also take the time to do it well. We want to make sure that we have those studies as well, because they are important.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc, for covering what you think were the important things.
I spent a number of years on SOCI. Sometimes I would even just say “Social Affairs Committee,” because science and technology would end up not being covered as much. We would talk about it now and again, but it seemed that we were always involved in other issues. I think your comment that social affairs deals with people’s everyday lives is an indication of why science and technology ended up getting pushed to the side.
We studied a number of high-profile issues on the health care system, women’s health, mental health and mental illness, which is still being talked about many years later, and another report on post-secondary education. Those are just a few that come to mind, but we were always able to balance it.
Technology in 2022 has become all-encompassing. It has changed dramatically. The fact that we’re having a hybrid meeting today is a big indication of how much things have changed in the past number of years.
I was struck by your comments that science and technology in another committee would allow the Social Affairs Committee to not only deal with legislation but perhaps get back to doing some of those reports that affect the everyday lives of Canadians. Would that be a fair assessment of the comments that you have made?
Senator Petitclerc: Absolutely. What I would want is a balance of SOCI having its responsibilities and legislative studies that we have, need and want to do, and having the time to continue the amazing work that we do in many studies, but not having — I speak for myself, but I know I speak for other members; you mentioned it yourself — the frustration of having to let go of the technology aspect of things. Even more so today, we want to be a Senate that is of its time, that is actual and relevant, and we cannot not touch on technology and innovation. I think it would be a mistake to not do that.
As you said, very often we talk about doing this as Social Affairs, but for many reasons, and certainly not because of the lack of desire, I fear that we would continue on the same path — which is not bad, right? — of having excellent work studying the bills that we have in front of us, with a very specific social affairs angle, which I think is very valuable. But then we would wake up in a few years frustrated because we haven’t done enough studies when it comes to technology. I don’t think we want that to happen.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Senator Petitclerc, I don’t have a question, but I agree that we have to find a way for the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to be more flexible in order to respond to needs for specific studies. I also believe its mandate is too broad, in itself. The only question I wonder about relates to the name: there will be a new committee name including the terms “technology”, “science”, etc., created. I agree with you that the names should be relatively general, to allow for the flexibility to study subjects, but at the same time, committee names should not be so general that they end up with no particular identity. We have to be relatively precise so we know we are becoming a member of a committee and taking part in discussions that relate to certain subjects, without going too far outside those boundaries.
As well, the question I wonder about, and your comments are welcome, is this: technology and science are ways of becoming more competitive as a country and being more modern, but that is not an end in itself. It is rather a way of getting there, but technology applies to everything, as does science. I’m afraid that it is a bit too broad; it isn’t an end, but a means of getting to a common goal. Those are my concerns or comments, but I would like to hear your own comments about this.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for that question, Senator Massicotte. That’s very interesting, and it’s true that on the one hand, when we look at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, for example, which covers a number of sectors, we see that its mandate is very descriptive. When it’s done that way, I think there’s a danger, because by describing things, we leave some things out, and we restrict ourselves, in fact. On the other hand, you’re right that if it’s too general, it becomes vague. I don’t have a precise answer to give you, but I think that what we’re aiming for is something, a title, a name, a description that is relatively general so as not to limit ourselves, but at the same time not too vague, so fairly precise, so that committee members know what is to be done, what their responsibilities and areas for studies are.
I would say that in my opinion, that is one of the objectives that has to be adopted: to simplify and at the same time remain precise. With that said, it’s true that when we talk about science, technology and communications, obviously we are launching into areas of interest that may take us elsewhere. That is an excellent example, science, because studies with a science angle can be done in virtually all committees. It’s important that all committees have that freedom.
To simplify, what we should not do, whenever we see the word “science”, is stop ourselves from doing this or that study because the field of study belongs to another committee. In my humble opinion, the Senate already offers that flexibility. If we pay attention to the names that are given and descriptions that are precise, not too vague, I think we will have already made some good progress.
The Chair: I have a comment to add about what was just said. The title “Science, Technology and Communications” sets the tone. When we think of “communications”, we also think of Internet technologies, and that makes us think of artificial intelligence.
I think it’s important for the Senate to look ahead and that we be able to look at what is coming in the entire field of artificial intelligence and communications. It’s going to turn our economy, our society, and our means of communication on their head, but even more so the ways we do things and discover things.
If we had thought about it faster when the Internet came on the scene 20 years ago, we might not have fallen behind when it comes to integrating digital technologies in businesses. To me, when I think about creating this committee, it’s obvious that we have to think about the entire field of artificial intelligence, which will soon be invading our lives, and is already starting to. It creates a tipping point that will trigger major changes everywhere. From what I understand about the theme of this committee, that is part of it.
[English]
Senator Batters: Senator Petitclerc, what do you think specifically has been missed to be dealt with at SOCI over the last few years? Is it primarily studies? Are there particular areas of study that you wanted to carry out that your committee spoke about? You said you had been on steering for a number of years. Were there times when you wanted to carry out specific studies but your committee didn’t have the time to do so because it had too wide of a scope?
Senator Petitclerc: I will speak as a former chair and also as a member of SOCI. I suspect it is the reality of all members in all committees that there are so many studies that we want to do because we believe in an issue and we want it to advance. That is the case in SOCI.
The only specific I will give is a study that I wanted to be accomplished. I was really interested in making a study happen on the impact of screen time on kids, which involves a bit of technology and a lot of health, in my humble opinion. This is something that, in my heart, I still want to see somewhere. For many reasons, it has not happened yet. Meanwhile, we are doing other studies. Again, as in life, when we choose to do something, we choose not to do something else. My hope is that we figure out a space so that we can do more. I believe we all want to do more.
To your point, again, there are many reasons, for example, the nature of the committee, the many options available and the mandate that is articulated with many different issues that we can and want to study. Regarding artificial intelligence, for example, I remember when Senator Ogilvie had a study on 3-D printing, artificial intelligence and technology in the health system. It was fascinating. That was one of the only times that we dove into technology in the health system. It was a health and technology issue. After that, many colleagues were saying, “We have to get to artificial intelligence because if we don’t, then it will catch up to us.” This is why I believe it is important.
It is a question of having the time to do what we want to do as a committee. It comes with frustration. Maybe, in the end, we do a lot already, and maybe someone will say, “You are accomplishing so much in this committee already,” — as we are in all committees — “it is fine.” I just don’t think we should settle. I guess that’s what I am saying. I don’t have all the answers on how we can articulate, organize and make it happen, but in your conversation and your study of that right now, I am feeling hopeful that there will be space to address those issues on science, technology and communications.
Senator Batters: Yes. I certainly understand that when you say there isn’t time to do what you want to. I am a longtime member of the Legal Committee. We almost never have time to do studies because we are always so inundated with legislation. That’s the nature of the beast. There is never time to do all the things you want to do.
There is also the question of how the Senate would contend with two additional committees. We only have 105 senators when we are at maximum, and right now we have a number of vacancies. I think we are only at 89 or 90 presently. Your particular group, the Independent Senators Group, is a very large group — about 40. You have a number of members, so when you need large numbers of committee members, you can draw from a much larger group. In the smaller groups, it is much more difficult, right? Senators will then have to end up sitting on many more different committees. To have two more added would potentially take away from their ability to do the best job that they can on the committees they do sit on to have adequate coverage at all of the committees. What do you think about that?
Senator Petitclerc: You are making a very important point that we have to take into consideration. I am of the strong opinion that there is so much expertise, competence and passion in the Senate in all groups.
To put it simply, I have read your comments on this before as well. I think we all agree that there is a maximum number of committees we can sit on and do the good work that we want to do. We have to be aware of that. We have to be cautious. I say “we,” but you have this in front of you as a group and we as a Senate.
Yes, we’re trying to maximize the work we can and want to do, but we also have to be cautious of the logistical and mathematical limits that we have in terms of what is possible and optimal for the number of senators we can possibly have, the number of committees there are and the number of committees each senator can sit on. I don’t have a specific answer to that.
I believe that adding two more committees is realistic. I believe we could not possibly expand and multiply the number of committees, because if senators ended up with too many committees in the end, it would impact the capacity of each senator to deliver their best work. So I agree with that, but when we are talking about two more committees — I don’t have the details on the different hours and all of that — but I don’t think we’ve reached that limit, and it is realistic in my humble opinion.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Lankin: Senator Batters raises an important point, which we have begun to talk about, regarding the scope of issues that we have to address when looking at committees, and that’s the current workload in terms of the number of committees that senators have. It raises the question as to the number of senators per committee. Personally, as we look at step 3 of our study, we have to tackle the issue of the number of senators per committee and take into account what that means for the smaller groups within the Senate. Senator Batters raises an important point.
On another tangential point, I experience some of our committee meetings as unsatisfactory in terms of being able to get to all the issues that I would like to with witnesses, because there are a number of senators around the table. Most often, every senator has questions, and there is often not enough time, particularly with 12-15-member committees. That’s an important issue.
The issue of the nature of legislation and the workload that have been coming to SOCI during the pandemic, which has reduced our resources and our time to be able to do things, is perhaps a unique combination of issues, but I don’t know that we know that, looking into the future. I think about the kind of government legislation that may be coming forth in the next while, which would, under the current structure, end up probably going to SOCI. That would be when the Medical Assistance in Dying, or MAID, legislation returns to us after this review if there is a follow-up there. There is dental care and pharmacare. These are huge policy issues. I don’t know what the legislation will look like. That’s part of the crystal ball gazing that we can’t actually address. The government is also currently in the process of a major consultation on Employment Insurance, or EI, reform.
This brings me to the discussion of the other committee that’s being proposed and the section of SOCI work that would go there, which is some of the labour market and human resource issues. We’ve not really had, other than through Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, a real focus on the labour market, job-skills training or a range of those kinds of issues.
In the kinds of studies we see backing up, I will mention and declare my own bias. Three years ago, I brought forward a motion to study the future of workers in the gig economy. In the three years that have passed, a lot has happened in that area. We will have a lot of catching up to do if we ever get to that.
Another proposed study has gone through the Senate as well and has been referred to committee. It is regarding the new immigrant workers in essential work fields, temporary foreign workers and pathways to citizenship, and that’s a big chunk of work. There’s also a proposed study on suicide prevention and a couple of others. I won’t go through the whole list. One has been waiting for three years, another one for two years, and the others are more recent.
Considering the labour market and human resource issues, the kinds of work that will be facing us post-pandemic in understanding the changes in the economy and the changes in the nature of work, does it make sense for those issues to go to a separate committee as has been proposed — a human resources and labour market committee?
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, Senator Lankin, for the question.
I do think it makes sense. Although I have not talked about it as much since I’ve been focusing on the issue of technology leaving SOCI, it is important.
I don’t have specific expertise in human resources and the labour force, which are two things — again, same as with technology and innovation — we haven’t focused on in SOCI when it comes to that. We have to acknowledge that, and we should acknowledge it. If there is one thing I have realized — that we all have realized — during this pandemic, it’s that human resources and labour force challenges, demands and dynamics are different now. It is fair to say that in the provinces and as a country, it has been a bit of a wake-up call at some levels. There is an opportunity — that’s how I see it really — to jump in and to produce studies that will be valuable to Canadians and to the government.
I see it as crucial and important. I have realized it more than ever before, as a non-expert. We have to grab this opportunity if we can, because — and I know all of my colleagues feel the same — we don’t want to study something just because it is interesting. There are so many things that are interesting but that can’t impact Canadians, the government or policies. We want to find issues and produce work that has an impact and will make a difference. I do think human resources is one such place where we can make a difference, and the time is now.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc, for those comments. Do you have a supplementary, Senator Lankin?
Senator Lankin: No, thank you.
The Chair: We will go to Senator Greene and Senator Woo, and then we will conclude this part of the discussion and go on to the principles guiding our discussion on the future agenda.
Senator Greene: Picking up on some of the comments Senator Batters and Senator Lankin made with the regard to the ability of small caucuses to cover the work of committees, I would contend that is a point that is only interesting to caucuses which are small and which have a partisan bent. I’m not saying such a thing is wrong or bad or anything like that, but if a caucus chooses to be partisan, then the issue of being able to cover the work of a committee is important. If they aren’t partisan, then they’re more concerned, it seems to me, about the value of the work itself, so the issue of whether a small caucus can cover the work of a particular committee just vanishes.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, Senator Greene. It is an interesting comment.
I have thought about the number of senators we have in the Senate, the different groups that are changing or forming and the impact this has on trying to have members from all groups in all committees being able to do good work without having too many committees. I haven’t really considered whether they are partisan or not, but I understand what you’re saying. It does have an impact. But with this partisan or non-partisan, my personal belief is that, as an independent senator, I want all groups to be represented and to be able to deliver their best in all committees. This may be my very naive wish, but I believe we can make that happen. There is value in that. The best work we do is through diversity of opinion, perspective and belief.
So when it comes to organizing those new structures and new committees, I do agree that we have to keep in mind that it has to be realistic. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. So I see the clock running, so we must move along.
Senator Woo: I’ll try to be brief. I think I have heard that immigration issues, broadly, would belong in a human resources committee, should that be set up. I think that makes sense, but I just wanted to get clarification from Senator Petitclerc. The reason that is important is because while I don’t think we have had major immigration bills, there are many immigration snippets and tidbits that come up in lots of bills. I can think of Bill S-6 right now, for which I am the sponsor. It is at SOCI. It has to do with quite a technical immigration issue. Presumably, that would have gone to a human resources committee, but there are many other examples like that in the budget bill and so on. Putting immigration in a human resources committee really would free up a lot of the time of a SOCI-type committee that wouldn’t have to deal with those issues. Maybe Senator Petitclerc can comment on my comment.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, Senator Woo.
Yes, I will comment by saying that my first impression or reflex would be to say that I think you are correct. I agree with you that immigration issues and topics should go and it would be added value if they go with a human resources committee.
You were speaking and I was remembering many times at SOCI when we had bills with different components in the budget, for example — but different bills — and when we say, “Okay, we need to dig deeper into that,” and we didn’t because we didn’t have the time. So maybe this is an opportunity to tackle those very important issues that I think we see many times, we value them, we want to do them but we don’t have time.
Senator Batters: I wanted to make a brief comment after I heard what Senator Greene was talking about regarding the partisan nature. From our group’s standpoint, it wouldn’t necessarily be because of partisanship that we would be concerned about having appropriate coverage for all of the different Senate committees. As things stand right now, we would be concerned about that because we’re the official opposition and there is that important function to keep the government accountable and also to, yes, just make sure that all senators are, as many have said, getting the best chance to do the best work they can do. It’s not even necessarily a partisanship thing, but it’s from those two standpoints. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: On those comments, I will thank everyone for this discussion.
[English]
Senator Petitclerc, I particularly thank you for your comments, generosity and your preparation for this session. I think it’s very worthwhile. It enables us to underline some of the further questions we have to dig into when we decide whether to create those two committees. That is also the task of a senator: to have reasonable hours of possibility to participate in a committee. Also, the scope of the mandate, the relevance to the federal government and so forth are all issues that we have to consider when we decide whether to create new committees. We will pursue this discussion next week with other witnesses and people who are actually chairs of those committees, having in mind that we would like to resume this debate at the end of June at the latest. You’re welcome, Senator Petitclerc, to stay for the discussion that follows and to add your perspective also. We will be discussing some of those principles.
Senator Batters, if you have a comment, please go ahead.
Senator Batters: Thank you. This is just with respect to something you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting when you were speaking about the Parliament of Canada Act changes that are now incorporated in the Budget Implementation Act. I just wondered if we would be receiving that, then, as a pre-study or something like that. Have you heard anything that we might be receiving that part as a pre-study? It’s never actually been studied — the previous two iterations — when it went to the Senate. The most we ever had before was that the minister responsible came to do a Committee of the Whole in the Senate and answered questions for an hour or so, but it has never been studied at a committee level. There could be some benefit to that.
The Chair: Thank you for your question. It’s a valid point, and I don’t have the answer to it. We will have to lean a bit on the leadership, when they share the budget into different areas, to decide if we will do the pre-study on that or if it has been taken for granted because we accepted, except maybe for some people who were against the bill, to be in agreement with the bill. Let me return to you at the next meeting with a specific answer to your question.
Now we will start a discussion on the guiding principles that could guide us when we decide to change a practice or a rule. It comes from a discussion we had at steering committee. Some members proposed to have guiding principles, so we thought it would be very interesting to have them on the table now to see your reactions and whether you agree with those guiding principles. I’m going to identify all six of them.
The first one is the independence of the Senate of Canada as a chamber of sober second thought. Any change should take that into account.
[Translation]
The second principle is fairness among senators, groups and caucuses.
[English]
We know we have already debated those issues in the Senate, so we thought it’s a good principle to have in our future agenda.
The third is efficiency in our work. It is quite evident that we would like to be efficient and do the best work in the time that is allocated to us.
[Translation]
Accountability to the Canadian public is another important principle that is consistent with our rules, given our mandate to keep a close watch on the government and be accountable to the public for our decisions.
[English]
Next is attempting consensus in our work in committee.
[Translation]
The fifth principle is self-evident. Our committee rarely holds votes, but we try to reach consensus in our work, which doesn’t necessarily mean there is always unanimity.
[English]
The last principle, the Westminster model, is the foundation of our parliamentary system. We have this proposition in the Constitution. In the preamble, there is some statement about the Westminster model. There is a lot of definition about the Westminster model.
We will open the debate on all those principles.
Senator Massicotte: I have no problem with all of the items, but I wouldn’t mind having a discussion briefly on what consensus means to you. This is an individual choice, but any consensus is fundamental to the way the Senate operates. If I were to give you my interpretation, it means that there should be a sincere, strong effort to get approval of all matters, but, on occasion, that will not be achievable. As a minimum, I would argue that, in that case, after a serious and sincere interest to try to find agreement, if such is not possible after a reasonable amount of time, then I think a large majority is satisfactory to achieve that end, and I think that’s a choice you have. I think it’s useful to have the discussion about what it means. There was a debate in the Senate recently about where you can make an effort and get 51%, and that seems to be adequate and, to some people’s mind, a consensus.
The Senate really needs consensus, so that would be my definition — in other words, sincere, strong effort to get agreement. If you can’t do so, it has to be a large majority — in other words, maybe two-thirds vote, and you get on with life. Somebody should not hold you hostage just because they don’t agree with the final result.
My other comment is I hear all kinds of comments in our chamber about the Westminster model. Senator Greene can talk more about this because the Modernization Committee, which he co-chaired, has a significant definition of that. When you look at the Westminster model, you even have some Parliaments that don’t have two houses. There is immense flexibility and variation to that. Before you make up your mind about it, you should probably read the report and understand what all the choices are, what it means to all of us and just make it very broad. Think broadly. Don’t think you will get agreement because you have some preconception. It’s very broad.
Chair, those are my two comments.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Massicotte. I think that’s a very good idea, and we will send each of you a copy of the third report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, which did a study on the Westminster model.
Senator Busson: I agree with my esteemed colleague Senator Massicotte that each of these bullets can be accepted as guiding principles. Again, it does bear interpretation.
As for the reaction I have, especially around the last one with regard to the Westminster model, I am even drawn to the comments made earlier by our witness Senator Petitclerc about the fact that the Senate should be a Senate for today and for the future, and that it needs to be more and more relevant as we move forward. We have worked a long time, as Senator Massicotte said, on issues of modernization. My only comment, and I think as an eye forward to tradition, as tradition in this country is very important to keep in mind as we’re drawing things forward in our chamber of sober second thought. The history of this country is built on the tradition of the Westminster model, but I would just caution that we use that to model as a helping hand and make sure that it’s not used as a sword to destroy our movement forward in our efforts to modernize and become even more relevant to Canadians.
Senator Woo: To build on Senator Busson and Senator Massicotte, and recognizing that I’m from the province where there is a New Westminster — indeed, it was the capital of British Columbia for a time — I don’t have a big problem with that principle, but I think it’s meaningless because, as Senator Busson and Senator Massicotte have pointed out, there are varieties of the Westminster model. Simply to say that we’re built on the foundation of Westminster doesn’t really convey very much. Leaving it in there is also fine as long as we all recognize — and this is for the record, as Senator Busson and Senator Massicotte have said — that we have to chart our own path, building on tradition and building on past practices, to develop a new New Westminster for our Senate, and that this principle should not hold us back.
On the question of consensus, I strongly support the objective of seeking consensus, and Senator Massicotte is correct to say that it should not be a reason to not move ahead with proposals if consensus cannot be found but where there is sufficient support for a change or a proposal. However, I am not sure about the supermajority idea, because that’s changing the rules. While it would be ideal to have a very large majority in favour of any particular proposal, and we should always strive for that, unless we actually change the rules, I do not believe we have the means to implement a practice whereby only large majorities can result in changes to how we do things.
The Chair: Thank you for that. I believe that it is important not necessarily to have rules on everything but to have a common understanding. Coming from my experience in chairing boards where we had many interest groups like unions, employers and community groups, I think we never had a vote. I think a consensus can emerge when people are sincere and when the group sees that it is only a little group that is not in favour of a change. Usually in those discussions, people accept. We don’t necessarily need a vote, but we’ll see what will go in the future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to reach a consensus.
Senator Batters: Dealing with the Westminster model topic first of all, that is a fairly watered-down version of what I was wanting to see as a principle, and it maybe provides a bit more specificity so that it’s more clear as to what the point was.
I wanted to see something that said the roles of the government and the opposition are the basis of a Westminster-style Parliament. Simply saying the Westminster model is the foundation of our parliamentary system can’t be denied; that’s a fact. In fact, to include what I was hoping to see, like maybe “the Westminster model (with government and opposition) is the foundation of our parliamentary system,” is simply a fact for the entire time that our institution has been in existence and many centuries before that in other Westminster-style Parliaments. I don’t think that in any way detracts from relevance or the ability to move forward. It is simply recognizing what we have. Yes, I think that the foundation is always a very important part of these types of exercises. If we’re going to have these guiding principles, either they mean something or they don’t. I think that’s an important thing to include. Frankly, what is worded there is the bare minimum. I would have liked to have seen a reference to government and opposition because I think that’s a very important part of our parliamentary system. As we have seen over the last number of years, it doesn’t preclude moving forward, or changing, or anything like that. I think that is an important part of it.
Regarding consensus, again, that’s a compromise for sure. What has actually existed always in the Senate is that when you change rules, you need to have a consensus — all groups and caucuses. It’s not 100% of every individual senator. Of course, many of us compromise on these different types of things, but you don’t change the Rules of the Senate ever — this has been the case — without having that consensus. As it’s worded right here, “attempting consensus in our work in committee,” that concerns changing the rules and procedures, that sort of thing.
That is what was behind those particular two points. If we’re not to include that point of consensus, I’m not even sure why we would have these guiding principles. That’s a very important one. To simply say “attempting consensus” is already a significant compromise. Those are my points on that.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: This is my first meeting at this committee and I’m really pleased to be able to get at least one foot wet, if not both before long. I think it isn’t too early for me to speak up or to say that when I read what we have been presented with, my opinion is that we should be open to what Canada said a very long time ago about reconciliation, well before Mr. Trudeau and the former government came on the scene and before the arrival of new members in the Senate.
I would like us to think about adding a point on reconciliation, or recognition, or reparations. I can co-write something with someone, certainly. I’m going to read what you talked about, Madam Chair, on the report dealing with the various models. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Woo: I understand these are principles for the Rules Committee and how we come to an agreement on rule changes. I don’t have a big problem with any of them. I like all of them.
However, to go back on the Westminster item, the preceding principles are really principles. You can work with efficiency, accountability and seeking consensus. They give us a sense of how we should talk to each other and how to prioritize items. The Westminster principle doesn’t guide us. There are so many varieties of Westminster that it doesn’t help us settle an issue or point us in a direction to deliberate between opposing options. Again, I don’t have a fundamental problem with it, but it’s a category error. That is how I describe it. It doesn’t fit in the other items that we have listed. No one can argue that we are part of the Westminster system. If it is simply the fact that we want to say it, why don’t we say it?
Senator Lankin: Following on Senator Woo’s point — and I think this is what Senator Batters spoke to — what Senator Batters proposed made reference to the government and opposition, namely, you might lift out of this a guiding principle that requires some special treatment. We don’t know what that will look like as we go forward. However, I have no problem with the reference to Westminster here, as others have already spoken about the variety of models. I think that we will take our guidance from the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, which I believe will continue to identify government and opposition.
I haven’t seen the budget implementation. It is an area, as Senators Batters said, that we will want to take a look at irrespective of whether it gets sent to our committee. It’s important for our committee to understand it. I think that will give a bit more clarity and guidance to us.
Regarding attempting consensus, when Senator Batters brought this one forward in our discussions, I was very concerned about it. I think one of the problems is what does “consensus” mean? As Senator Batters describes it, it doesn’t mean that every single senator would be in agreement, but I think it suggests that every group would have to be in agreement. In my first couple of years in the Senate, I served on this committee. That was a mantra that was repeated over and over again, and what it meant at the time was a veto power. As we have attempted in the six years that I have experienced here — and I know it goes on before that with the work of the Senate and the leadership of Senator Massicotte and Senator Greene — is that there has been a long effort to discuss these things and to make progress. We made slow progress, but I appreciate that we have made progress.
I personally can’t support a definition of consensus that means a veto. I hope that we never have to get to a point where a vote is forced in the committee. If it happens, in my view it will be after much effort to try and compromise and to listen to people and understand. To the points that Senator Batters has made, I fully understand the importance of the role of government and the opposition. Again, I think that will be reflected in the legislation that we’ll see. From what I have heard, I don’t think there will be a change. It was reflected in the legislation and the motions of Senator Woo and Senator Tannas as they evolved and came forward.
While I agree with Senator Woo that the last bullet point perhaps doesn’t add a lot to our decision making, it is still fundamentally a true act and constitutionally it’s a fact. The references that Senator Batters made to government and opposition will continue to be clear in the Parliament of Canada Act.
I can support the six points that are here. Remember that they are to be applied to our study of rules. I don’t want to spend a long time discussing the principles.
I will ask Senator Audette — and maybe it’s something we can talk about over the next little bit — what the reference to reconciliation and reparation might mean in terms of the Rules of the Senate. For example, we recently dealt with the issue of an objection that was raised when Senator McCallum used a feather fan as a support and a cultural expression in the delivering of a speech. In fact, it was hands down supported by everybody on the committee that that is not inappropriate under the current rules. I think we have to be a little bit more specific about what it meant to enter it there because then there would always be a question about what it means as a principle with respect to changing the Rules of the Senate, whereas I think it is one of the general principles with respect to the review of any legislation.
That brings us to the rule changes that we have in our package to look at for the future, which has a checklist, almost — and this is something that Senator Bellemare has been promoting for a number of years, where we must look at the constitutional and charter implications. We must look at regional implications. We must look at minority population groups and, in particular, we must look at First Peoples through the eyes of reconciliation and reparation. We might want to be careful what we are focusing on putting that in, but there is certainly room for more conversation, Senator Audette, about that.
Senator Wells: I appreciate all the comments from everyone. I want to go through a couple of them. A lot of these are there by default, what we do and what we are, in any event.
Independence of the Senate. Of course, we are fully aware of that.
Equity. I’m not sure if that means equality among senators, which is there, and among groups and caucuses, which is coming.
Efficiency in our work. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency, but I’ll also note that the rules are there as a protection as well, and we can discuss that.
Accountability to Canadians. Of course, we are accountable to Canadians, but we’re also accountable to our groups and caucuses and accountable to ourselves, and that’s an important point to make. Even though we are not elected but appointed, we do have to face the Canadian public every day in what we do, and we’ve seen that time and time again.
Attempting consensus in work on committees, I think that’s the way it always is. Of course, there is not always consensus, and the fallback on that is the democratic vote, but if we can find consensus and attain our results that way, that makes sense to me. I think that’s what we do regardless.
I take fully what Senator Woo has said about the Westminster model, and he is right that it may not belong in this list because the Westminster model is provided for in the Constitution, and how we view that is really up to us. There is enough flexibility in the Westminster model that, even if we had very few rules, we would still come up with solutions and processes that fit our needs, as we’ve done in the last seven, eight or maybe more years with the new style of senator coming in. We’ve made rule changes. We’ve made procedure changes. We’ve made policy changes. Even in our own practices, we’ve made those changes, and the rules allow that and the Westminster model has allowed that. We’ve still maintained truth to the Westminster model by the flexibility that grants us in being the masters of our own chamber. Anyway, I wanted to weigh in on that.
I think these are really important considerations. I don’t think they change a whole lot of our abilities to do what’s right on behalf of, obviously, the Senate and Canadians.
Senator Batters: With respect to the comment that perhaps the point about the Westminster model doesn’t fit, well, frankly, I feel that it is so foundational that this could start with that, saying the Westminster model is the foundation of our parliamentary system and it is proposed that the following principles guide our deliberations on the rules and our procedures. It’s because everything kind of stems from that really.
My point about the government and opposition would be that if we’re going to put a point in about equity among senators, surely noting that government and opposition are an important part of that system would be just as important.
Senator Duncan: My concern is with references to the Westminster model and, in the same breath or paragraph, I heard senators refer to a variety of interpretations of the Westminster model. My concern is that in codifying it or in stating the Westminster model, it is not clear to absolutely everyone in the room exactly what that means. As I have noted, people have said there are different interpretations. It also doesn’t account for the evolution of the Westminster model, because we could have 105 senators with 105 interpretations of what the Westminster model is and how it’s used. My concern is, rather than stating “Westminster model,” that we should be precisely clear on what is meant. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: That’s an excellent example: my colleague Senator Duncan has explained what understanding and interpretation are.
So we understand that our wise experts are very knowledgeable on the subject. For those who are following us or who have a vision of the Senate, people may not necessarily understand.
I was thinking about the interesting comments made by my colleague Senator Duncan. Eventually, when I understand it all better, how can we facilitate the testimony of people who are living in situations that do not really make them comfortable? That is why, when I talk about reconciliation, it can be meant both for people who are vulnerable and for Indigenous people. Two committees have recently experienced situations in which they had to be innovative and creative, because the rules were hard to follow in very specific cases. That is what I’m getting at when I ask the question.
Among the large majority of people I see every day, there is openness or flexibility when it comes to giving testimony, whether or not it’s filmed—I can’t say more about that right away—but there are discussion going on with APPA. How can we make testimony accessible, comfortable and safe, when the current context is so rigid? That is what I’m getting at when I talk about reconciliation, but it’s only one example.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m going to maybe repeat what Senator Lankin said a bit, that it’s possible to study changing the regulations to accommodate witnesses. However, I think we are all aware of the fact that we are in a reconciliation process.
So the approach that has been adopted is to analyze our regulations to recognize that. The methodology we are using to do it is a methodology of openness, and I think that’s what we are trying to do at the moment.
Thank you for your comments. Are there other comments? Otherwise, we will summarize by saying that we have our principles for the moment. If you like, we could now conclude the discussion on this subject.
We could have witnesses, if you wanted to at some point. If you wanted to have testimony from people from the House of Lords to explain for us how they interpret their system, that might be possible. Otherwise, we could come back to this subject from time to time and continue the talks. Given that these principles are not subject to a vote, I think we all agree to study this question with open minds to move the Senate forward, while respecting the fact that there is an opposition and there are government representatives, groups, and senators.
I think the matter of the official opposition is recognized in the Parliament of Canada Act. The bill that will be passed also recognizes that principle. We are going to be examining the rules throughout our process. We don’t have to define the rules at the moment, in terms of what does or doesn’t make up the official opposition. I think that’s a recognition that is already stated in the guides we have.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I just wanted to get some clarity on what you were saying, chair. If I understood it, when I put it all together, these are the principles that we will use, and the reference to calling witnesses will be on specific issues or on the Westminster system as it applies to certain issues, like if we were bringing someone, for example, from the House of Lords, not with respect to the principles. I’m hoping that is what you meant. I don’t want to bring witnesses in on our principles because we will never get to talk about the rule changes then. I believe our in-depth work, while guided by these principles, should be informed as much as possible by studying and looking at other jurisdictions and, where appropriate, by bringing in witnesses. If that is what you meant, I agree.
The Chair: I think you are correct. Yes, this is what I meant, even though I maybe didn’t say it that way. I think what I meant, deeply, is to have people who have experience with the Westminster system to come and help us in the study of specific rules when the time comes, but not to speak about the guiding principles because otherwise we will never start to look at our rules. So if that is clear, that’s what I meant. Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: I wanted to make a quick point that, regardless of whether something is in the new Parliament of Canada Act revision that is included in the 450-page budget implementation or not, I view this as separate. We are specifically doing these guiding principles to guide us in how we study our rules and procedures. Of course, we can always reference those, and the legislation will be very important in that. That’s the only point I wanted to make.
Senator Massicotte: I don’t think it is worthwhile, to be frank, that this committee spend a lot of time on the Westminster model or try to achieve an interpretation of it. I think what I heard from all of you is that we are reasonably close to an agreement. I think that we should work with the existing wording, adding a special paragraph. I don’t care. I don’t think that it warrants us becoming experts on Westminster when there are so many different examples. It gives us all the flexibility we want to do what we want to do, which I think is the only important point, and we should leave it at that. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. Thank you.
The Chair: I think we all agree that we will pursue our study on the specific rules and practices. We have a long list of things, and we will start pretty soon.
In conclusion, I will say that we will resume on the choice of having the creation of two new committees next week with other witnesses. We will have a steering committee. We had a list and we kind of have an agenda, but before I announce anything specific for next week, I want us to meet. We also know that we will receive from the chief clerk a series of changes in the rules that they want us to look at. It has been a long time. They are building these rules. We should have that pretty soon. Steering will receive it this week. If we are prepared, maybe we will do that next week.
We also wanted to have a discussion among ourselves on all the rules that are there as default rules. Do we need to keep them, or do we want to change them in the future? It is a discussion. There is no proposition. It is to see what we want to do with the default rules that say, for example, we have a break at six for two hours, we can sit until midnight — all those little rules. They will come to us soon.
On that, I thank you very much for your participation and for the debate. I think we had a lively debate, and we will continue, because there is a lot to come. There are also more difficult issues that we will discuss when the time comes. For the moment, thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)