THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 28, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET] to consider possible amendments to the Rules, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a) of the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. We are continuing our study on committee structure and mandates. Last week, we heard from Shaila Anwar, who gave us more of a macro-analysis, with statistics on meetings, bills and committee budgets.
Today, we are hearing from the committees, themselves. We invited the current and former chairs and deputy chairs of all the committees, as well as former senators who were active committee members, to share their thoughts on the work they do, the way in which they view the role of their committee in relation to the role of the Senate, and a range of issues pertaining to how committee work is organized.
We asked each of the senators to give an opening statement.
Without further ado, we will get started. We have with us today four senators representing the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We will go in alphabetical order, beginning with Senator Boisvenu, followed by Senators Cotter, Jaffer and Joyal.
Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: This is an honour, especially to be here with current and former colleagues. Normally, you would have started with the senator who was a former committee chair, who did a fantastic job and with whom I really enjoyed working.
I have been on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the past 14 years. Eight of those years, I have served as the committee’s deputy chair. I was practically born there.
It’s one of the committees with a massive workload, especially legislation-wise. I don’t mean to diminish the work of the other committees, of course. In addition, when the committee has time — which is rare — it carries out special studies. One of our last studies focused on court delays, and the report is considered a reference on the subject.
The first thing I would say about the committee’s work has to do with workload. I think the workload and its impact have been underestimated. That is why we have to work with haste.
That was the case recently with government bills that had been passed in the House of Commons and were being studied in the Senate. That work was really fast-tracked to meet the government’s deadlines. Studying bills with haste impacts the quality of our work when it comes to hearing from witnesses, digging into issues deeper and even fulfilling the Senate’s mission. That mission centres on quality, not quantity.
The second thing I would say pertains to a situation that has existed since 2015, the extensive representation of every group on committees. As a result, the committee’s membership has gone from 8 to 11 senators. I think that’s the biggest impediment. Why? The committee hears from three witnesses, and each senator has four minutes to question the witnesses. These are individuals with expertise, so we should be asking probing questions, not simply gleaning information from them. That also hinders the work of the committee chair, who has to be a timekeeper much more than a facilitator or leader trying to achieve broad consensus over a bill or study.
I think the Senate has a choice to make. Is it going to put representation above quality? I think we have to decide. Personally, my preference is always to put quality first. I will always give committee members who have extensive legislative knowledge the opportunity to discuss issues with the witnesses, as opposed to simply questioning them. There are usually three or four witnesses appearing before the committee at once. There are 11 senators sitting around the table, and each of them has four minutes to question the witnesses. If I put myself in the witnesses’ shoes, it’s enough to make my head spin. All we are able to do is scratch the surface of an issue, so when we draft reports on bills or studies, we’re just working with the information we have gleaned.
I think committee members can do more and can do better. I think the structure of committees is diminishing the quality of our work right now.
Those are my thoughts. I look forward to discussing them with you. The two things I’d like you to take away are the haste with which we have to work — because of the workload — and the quality over quantity element, which significantly hinders the work of committees.
[English]
Hon. Brent Cotter: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I believe this is the first time I have ever testified before a Senate committee. It’s a great honour, and I am, understandably, very nervous.
I propose to make three or four simple points, if I may. As you will know, I am new to the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and, in that context, I think it’s fair to say I have learned great deal about chairing committees from others of you in this room. I note Senator Black and, particularly in the context of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Senators Jaffer and Boisvenu, and from a distance and from reading, former Senator Joyal. In that respect, I will significantly defer to and, I’m sure, endorse many of the observations that they have made or will make.
With respect to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and in the context of your work, I have three points to convey. The first is that based both on my own experience and the statistical information collected by clerks regarding committee activities, I think it’s fair to say that LCJC is one of the workhorse committees of the Senate. By this, I mean it has a central responsibility and a substantial responsibility in relation to the review of much government legislation grounded in law. This work tends to be highly disciplined, and I think it’s fair to say that the committee adequately and honourably fulfills this work week in and week out. It benefits from a composition that includes a significant number of legally trained senators but also from the perspective of those who are not too severely immersed in law, if I may say.
There are consequences to this. The workhorse responsibility of the committee does appear to impede its opportunity to undertake special studies. This is of some significance given that we do not have the time to examine the components of the law, and particularly the criminal law, in a very orderly way. I worry that some of the expertise and enthusiasm of committee members is not fully taken advantage of as a result of this limitation. While the new Law Commission of Canada offers a useful vehicle for this more comprehensive study, it does not entirely compensate for the limitations on the ability of the Senate, and particularly this committee, to undertake such studies, often resulting in highly regarded, valuable and useful reports.
In some respects, to be fair, we are the author of our own problems. Here I mean more generally the Senate. What I mean by this is that a not insignificant portion of our work tends to be the consideration of amendments to very specific provisions of the criminal law, piecemeal, understandably, and often what seem to be Band-Aids, when a more comprehensive consideration of segments of the criminal law appears to be called for. This is a worry for me, quite frankly.
My second point, connected with the first, is that the committee occasionally loses time because of overlapping Senate Chamber activity. In this regard, it would be useful if there were a standard understanding or order that this committee and perhaps two or three other of the significant committees of the Senate can still meet concurrently when the Senate is in such conflict. There is a dialogue about this in the coming week, but I think that would be valuable. There is not urgency to every bill we consider, but as Senator Boisvenu noted, it is often the case, and, as present circumstances highlight for us, senators’ own bills that are referred to committee or likely to be referred to our committee in the near future are piling up, and it is somewhat disrespectful to have to say to them continually that it will be months before we are able to entertain and examine their bills.
Third — and associated with these two earlier points — from time to time discussions are held to refer certain bills to committee that have a meaningful legal component that is relevant to the core mandate of Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Given the workload of LCJC, my impression is that these bills are occasionally referred to other committees for purposes expeditious, when at least some aspects of such bills deserve LCJC consideration. I can mention one or two, if it is helpful.
While I understand these decisions are taken elsewhere, it would be valuable if we had a working protocol where the decision makers consulted with the chair of LCJC, who, in consultation with the executive or steering group of the committee, was able to advise on the wisdom of a bill or a portion of such a bill being referred to LCJC. I don’t mean to be disrespectful of other committees, but a meaningful piece of a bill, particularly if it impacts the Criminal Code, ought to be the purview of this committee, and sometimes it isn’t.
Let me conclude by saying simply that serving on every committee of the Senate with which I have been associated has been a very positive experience. It has been an honour to serve on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the brief time I’ve had the opportunity to chair the committee, a committee which is extremely well supported by its clerk and professional team. There is a discipline and professionalism to the fulfillment of our responsibilities somewhat different from other committees, but there are ways in which I think we could strengthen our work and create greater opportunities to take advantage of the skill set of senators who serve on the committee. I’m honoured to be part of that work.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Cotter.
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. Goodness, I am nervous. I do not want to repeat what my colleagues have said, so I will go onto another topic.
I will start off by pointing out that one of the key differences between the Senate and the other place is that we have a mandate not only to provide sober second thought but to proactively study issues important to Canadians in a way that isn’t possible by elected officials.
Having served on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for many years, I have thought about the mandate of the Legal Committee, and I am of the opinion that the committee only deals with half the mandate. Presently, the committee’s time is spent on studying government bills and bills introduced by senators. At the moment, normally the committee will only study government legislation, constitutional and judicial reviews and bills on elections. The committee spends a vast majority of its time studying government legislation or bills introduced by senators, which leaves very little time for other business.
In addition to providing sober second thought, I believe the committee also needs to study issues that the other place would never have the time to study, such as:
Statutory review clauses reveal an uncertainty at the time of the bill’s passing and, without conducting these reviews, problems may arise that the legislature will not be made aware of and will not act upon. Ms. Anwar, when she was at your committee, stated that typically LCJC has time to conduct its reviews at the start of the session and then invariably runs out of time.
Studies. As a house of sober second thought, it is very important that we do carry out studies of important constitutional and legal matters. I believe it is the Senate’s most important role. The most recent study we did was in 2016 with the report entitled Delaying Justice Is Denying Justice. We have not been able to study the six recommendations we made in the report.
The third matter we need to look at is the delaying of appointment of judges. In the study we did on delaying justice, one of the recommendations we made reads:
The committee recommends that the Government of Canada take immediate steps to ensure that an efficient and expeditious system is in place for making the necessary judicial appointments to provincial superior courts.
The minister was in front of us last week. I asked him about that, and I think Senator Batters asked as well. I don’t think we got a proper response. I think this is a very important thing for the committee to study.
The next thing is the review of our Criminal Code. There is a dire need to review our Criminal Code, as the code has become unmanageable, and we constantly hear that there needs to be a review of the code. This review, as you can imagine, would take a very long time to be carried out.
Presently, we cannot carry out the following matters as in our mandate. These are statutory review, study of important legal issues, the delay of appointments of judges, and the review of the Criminal Code. I would like to suggest the following for your committee to consider: that in the future, there be an entirely different committee to study the matters I have set out above, but in the meantime, we follow the Defence Committee model of a subcommittee with the main committee studying government legislation, private members’ legislation, judicial and constitutional reviews and elections, and the subcommittee studying what I have set out: statutory reviews, delays and vacancies in the court system, studies of important legal issues and the review of the Criminal Code.
I respectfully ask you to consider the terrible situation of the Legal and Constitutional Committee, where we cannot carry out the mandate which we have. I would like to repeat to you what our mandate is: LCJC’s mandate is to examine legislation and to study matters relating to legal constitutional matters generally, including the criminal justice system and the Criminal Code, constitutional issues, electoral matters, linguistic and legal duality, federal and provincial relations, law reform and the judiciary and most private bills. We are not able to fulfill our mandate.
I am really glad that this study is taking place at this time. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome back, Senator Joyal. The floor is yours.
Hon. Serge Joyal, P.C., former senator, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t think this will come as a surprise to anyone: I would have happily paid for the opportunity to be here this morning. I can’t tell you how pleased I am to see my former colleagues. We are no longer colleagues in the Senate, but we have remained friends and kept in touch over the past few years, in some form or another, despite being physically separated because of the pandemic, as you can imagine. You can take the person out of the Senate, but you can’t take the Senate out of the person.
This morning, I am especially privileged to have the opportunity to share my views with you on the mandate of the committee. The first comment I’d like to make is in response to a question Senator Woo asked last week: How do we measure the effectiveness of committees?
[English]
You will remember that Ms. Anwar, who is the clerk of committees, referred to the book Protecting Canadian Democracy, so you would not be surprised if I start with a commercial.
The Chair: We already bought it.
Mr. Joyal: I draw no profit or benefit from it because I gave all my author rights to the Canadian Centre on Public Management and Policy from the beginning, so, in other words, it’s free of charge. I refer to this book. It is important. As always in the Senate, we should put it in perspective. What was the purpose of that book that I edited in 2003, which is 20 years ago?
I came to the Senate in 1997. I sat in the Senate for more than 23 years. As Senator Boisvenu knows, I sat for 23 years on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I will stress that, not because it’s an endurance test but because it’s linked to the nature of the institution, in a way. The first character of this institution is what I would call its long-term perspective brought into the study of legislation. “Long-term perspective” means “institutional memory.” “Institutional memory” means that the memory doesn’t belong to one senator; it belongs to the collective of the institution.
My first point is that when you compose a committee like the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, you have to make sure that a kind of continuity of membership remains on the committee. You cannot start a new Parliament and say, “Okay. We will erase the board and juggle with the names and put names here and there.” It is very important that there be continuity in the composition of this committee. This committee, as all my former colleagues have mentioned, deals with a very specific issue, which is law. It’s not fisheries. It’s not natural resources. It’s not agriculture. It’s law. What is law? It’s concepts. We deal with concepts of our rapport in society or structure and how they evolve. If you deal with concepts, you deal with a very abstract exercise, so you need to have people on board who can master those concepts.
I would be strongly opposed to the idea that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee be composed only of lawyers. That would be the worst recipe for, I would say, the sauce to stick together. It has to be a sample of intellectual resources in the domain of law. There is no doubt about it. We need to have, like it or not, lawyers. I’m looking at my colleagues from the bar around the table. You need to have lawyers, like it or not. There was a time, if you look into the statistics included in this book, when more than 40% of the Senate was composed of lawyers, to a point that there were criticisms that it was not representative of the diversity of Canadian society. This is a committee where you need to have a nucleus of lawyers but also people who know what justice is and what law and order are in society — that is, police forces and groups who represent victims, like Senator Boisvenu has been doing. Senator Boniface knows about it from her former career. We need to have a fair sample of representatives and people who have the expertise and experience in the domain of law and order, not in the partisan political sense but in the general sense of the organization of society. You also need to have people who can master what I call the domain of social sciences, who understand the family problems, who understand systemic discrimination, people who have lived or gone through those issues so that, at the table, they bring a perspective that is a complement to the nucleus of law.
My first suggestion to you, Madam Chair and honourable senators, is that you can no longer accept that the Senate is depleted by 10% or 20% of its forces. This is horrendous. You cannot accept that, for years, 10 seats in the Senate that are not filled. We are only 105 men and women. Committees need to rely on the workforce of its composition. Look at what happens in the House of Commons. If an MP resigns or passes away or leaves the chamber, the Prime Minister has a very specific time to call an election. But in the Senate, we can stay years and years with many seats unoccupied. What happens then? You deplete the capacity of committees. That, to me, is a very important element, and you cannot put it to the side and not think about. This institution has to do something to press the system to make sure that, after a period of time, the system can adopt a motion and bring it to the attention of the authorities and say, “It has been six months,” the same delay as in the House of Commons. After six months, you adopt a motion and ask that the seats be filled. I’m looking at my friend Senator Wells, who is from a province that has a small number of seats but a lot of work to cover in a lot of area. If you leave one seat in Newfoundland empty, it’s 25% of your workforce that’s gone. In Quebec and Ontario, it’s different because there are 24 senators. In smaller provinces, the fact that there is one seat empty has a much greater impact. That is my first suggestion to you.
My second suggestion is regarding how to measure the efficiency of the committee. This is the key issue. You have different scales to measure it. You can measure it by the number of amendments, but you have to qualify those amendments. If it’s an amendment to add a period at the end of a sentence, I don’t consider that an amendment. I mean substantial amendments. Second, you have to look into the observations of the committee. Those are normally the most loaded policy issues related to one subject. I will give you an example. We made observations at this committee — I am looking at my friend Senator Boisvenu — on the Elections Act. What did we conclude in the observations? We asked the government to review the act in relation to foreign intervention. I remember very well intervening to support it. Senator Batters will remember that. What is going on today with this, in my opinion, is a breach of section 3 of the Charter. The Charter says that each Canadian has the right to vote. The Supreme Court has interpreted that right to vote as meaning the government has a responsibility to make sure that the electoral system functions in a way that each and every Canadian has the right to freely vote and that his or her vote be counted without foreign interference. It seems to me that this committee has a capacity to follow up on the efficiency of itself. We made that recommendation some years ago. That recommendation is needed more today than ever. You have to measure the efficiency of this committee with a follow-up on the observations that we always appended to serious and important legislation. I will certainly have an opportunity to follow up on this, because it’s a subject that is much needed and should be discussed freely among ourselves today.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Joyal, I think I can safely say that everyone at the table would have paid to be here today to hear what you had to say, if they had to.
[English]
Thank you for being here. You have answered my first question. It was related to the expertise needed to sit on this committee.
I will ask a broader question to whoever on the panel wants to answer. We have to study the mandate and composition of all committees. You said that 12 members, Senator Boisvenu, is too large for this committee. Do you believe that eventually, with the whole picture of committees, we shall diminish the number of committees so senators sit on fewer committees and have more time each and every sitting week to work in the committees? Is that an option that, to the four of us, would appear as reasonable and feasible?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you for that very important question. I would say there are two options. The first is to keep the status quo, which would have unsatisfactory consequences both for witnesses and for senators, because there wouldn’t be an opportunity to delve deeper into the subject matter.
The other option comes with two possibilities. The first is to create a subcommittee, as was done with the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. The subcommittee would examine less crucial subjects than the Legal Committee, things such as private bills, legislative studies and studies of bills already passed by the House of Commons. Creating a subcommittee would free up time for the committee.
The second possibility is to increase the number of hours the committee meets. Four hours a week for the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is not nearly enough. In order to accomplish everything it has to do, the committee would need to meet eight hours a week.
Senator Joyal said something very important. It is not acceptable to have private bills in the Senate that won’t be passed. Senators spend hours drafting bills that end up sitting in the Senate because the committee isn’t able to do a thorough job.
Those are the two options I would say you have. As Senator Joyal said, you need to put quality above quantity.
Senator Saint-Germain: I had suggested something: having fewer committees that would sit for more hours. The committees could make the same case — they have studies to carry out, non‑government bills to examine and so forth. Do you think that’s something worth exploring?
Senator Boisvenu: I leave it to you to decide how many committees there should be. I don’t have a strong opinion on that. My experience comes from the 14 years I have been on the Legal Committee.
Some of the things the committee studies could be delegated to a subcommittee, similar to what the Defence Committee does with the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. That’s something the Legal Committee can’t do, even though its workload is even heavier.
Senator Saint-Germain: Neither can the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Senator Boisvenu: Neither can the Internal Economy Committee. The interesting thing about that idea is that the subcommittee could meet for four hours, like the Legal Committee, which could then focus on the crucial stuff, non-government bills and such.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here this morning. It’s wonderful to be amongst colleagues as witnesses. You’ve touched on a number of important issues today.
I’m going to ask a question around pre-studies. I’d like to get your thoughts on this as we go through a number of issues related to committees. Specifically, how useful do you feel pre-studies are for the Legal Committee? It seems like it’s a good way to manage your time instead of waiting for the onslaught, the arrival, the coming of the legislation from the other place and being the band in May and June. Do you find the studies useful or, at the end of the day, do you risk missing the information that comes through as a result of jumping into a pre-study in good faith? I’m also wondering, perhaps from Senator Jaffer and Senator Boisvenu, do you find that we’re using pre-studies more now than we did in last governments?
Senator Jaffer: We are using pre-studies more now than we ever did. It’s a good idea to study the bill before we get it, but there is one challenge which I find very difficult. If the House changes the bill, if there is an amendment, it could change the significance of the bill. When the pre-study is done, we still have to study the bill. Considering the load we carry, yes, it does help that we do study it, but there’s always that challenge if the House brings about a big amendment and we would have to restudy. There’s always that worry, as a chair, about what the House will do.
Mr. Joyal: I think we should never forget the nature of the Senate. The Senate has to bring sober second thought. I underline “second thought” here. If we are the first thought, it means that the second thought will go somewhere else, and somewhere else doesn’t bring the same perspective to the bill that we bring in the Senate, because of, as I mentioned, the long-term perspective. We are out of the electoral cycle. We’re more independent. We survive the regime. We bring to the institution a sober, which means deeper, look into the legislation. As I say, we are outside electoral preoccupation, especially during minority governments where, as you know, the attention of the other place is essentially to survive from one day to the next. We should be prudent in terms of a pre-study of a bill.
I remember the pre-study of the anti-terrorism legislation, which had in its substance a provision — I won’t go into the details of it — that, in the opinion of many senators, was a breach of the Charter because it could lead to the tabling of a proof outside the knowledge of the accused, which is, of course, a breach of a fundamental principle in the criminal justice system. We had that kind of preoccupation. We expressed it, but we were in a pre-study. When the bill went to the other place, it was more or less rubberstamped because there was the pressure of public opinion, the media and so forth. The bill got adopted, and guess what happened? It was challenged in court, and the Supreme Court concluded that that was a breach of the Charter.
You always have to remember that when the government or whoever has the authority asks you to do a pre-study, will you, in fact, as I say, put the cart in front of the horse on this issue or not? I’m not opposed in principle to a pre-study, but it should be on legislation that doesn’t carry issues that would touch, for instance, directly the Charter or a group that is discriminated against and so on, the preoccupation that we normally share in the Senate. That’s why I would not establish a principle that from then on we will do pre-study of bills. I think it would be, to restate my first point, against the nature of the institution and what we’re called to do. We sit like a court of appeal, not as a first-level court. We should always remember that.
Senator Cotter: Often the motivation for pre-studies is to achieve a degree of efficiency. The difficulty with this committee, perhaps more than others, is that except for a small window at the beginning of a session, it’s not as though we are sitting around waiting for work. Once we get going, the bills come to us relentlessly. It’s a pleasure to work on them, but it’s not as though we have much space once things start even to fit a pre-study in. I don’t think we can make it a priority with the work we are already dealing with the. It’s a bit of a challenge for us that way, Senator Deacon.
Senator Woo: I want to pick up on the triple observations made by all of you: first, that you have an inordinate amount of work to deal with; second, you don’t have time for special studies, which are so important; and third, Senator Joyal’s point that this is a committee about law and while it is important that the core consist of lawyers, it shouldn’t only be lawyers. By definition, all government bills are about law, and if they go to another committee, they are similarly about legal matters, broadly speaking. I’m going to put a proposition to you and see if you agree with it. I’m trying to solve the triple problem.
The proposition is that maybe lawyers should be distributed more generally across different committees so that other committees can pick up some of the bills that one would instinctively want to send to LCJC. Have the smattering of legal thinking and input and expertise in SOCI and Fisheries and Agriculture and so on, particularly when they deal with government bills. That, in turn, would free up LCJC to do what the core of lawyers is best at doing, which is the special studies on legal issues that are over the horizon or that have yet to be dealt with. I’m trying to solve the problem of workload, which, in turn, helps you free up time for special studies, and then also inject legal thinking into other committees while bringing in nonlegal thinking, other expertise, into LCJC.
Mr. Joyal: What you say, senator, is certainly right. I could give you an example. Let’s take medical assistance in dying. It’s very serious, and everyone has it on his or her mind in one way or the other. I thought this issue would be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but it was referred to Social. With all the respect I have for my colleagues who sit on Social Affairs, I said to myself, “Who is going to raise the Charter implications of this and the decision of the Supreme Court in Carter?” I am looking at Senator Batters; she knows that decision very well. I looked at the list of members, and, of course, they were very learned senators, but the need to insert some kind of legal input into the debate was not there. The debate took place and whatnot, and the bill was adopted and enhanced and then challenged in court.
It seems to me that there are sometimes issues in other committees that have direct implication on the Charter or the Constitution, for instance. It may be a natural resources issue such as an environmental evaluation whereby the provinces are challenging the authority of the federal government. You say it’s a legal issue. Yes, it has some legal implication. When the bill is debated at the Natural Resources Committee, there should be somebody able to articulate that aspect of the debate. As I say, there are many lawyers available to sit on committees with very specific issues. In other words, when there is a bill that has constitutional or Charter implications, a committee should not hesitate to see if they can temporarily have a member who could bring that kind of expertise for that legislation. Normally with natural resources, not all natural resource issues have the constitutional impact of sharing power between the federal and provincial governments. I think we should have a flexibility element built into the evaluation of the impact of legislation.
Senator Jaffer: I don’t completely agree with my learned colleague because I believe that lawyers — and I’m a lawyer — sometimes have a narrow way of looking at legislation. You don’t come to the Senate without immense experience, and other members bring very good knowledge from their life experiences and what they have studied. I think we need a mix. Otherwise, it’s a very narrow way of looking at it. Also, never forget that, in terms of the people who are on the committee, probably their staff are lawyers. We have analysts and the whole parliamentary library for support. People who are on the committee who are not lawyers are very well resourced. I would respectfully suggest to you that we mustn’t overplay the lawyer card because people who come to the Senate are very learned.
Senator Cotter: Just briefly, as kind of a riff, if I might, on Senator Woo’s suggestion, some bills that go to various committees are naturally law, but they don’t have kind of a rich legal issue that necessarily has to be wrestled to the ground by that committee. Others do. The examples that former Senator Joyal identified are, in fact, at the core of our responsibilities. One model might well be that when a committee receives a bill that has an identifiable Charter of Rights or division of powers issue, that it be referred to perhaps a subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that is structured to actually receive and examine those kinds of questions. I’m modestly disagreeing with Senator Jaffer, but only in the context that those questions are among the most significant responsibilities we as a Senate have to deal with. Speaking for myself, if I conclude, however good a piece of legislation is, that it is unconstitutional or a clear violation of the Charter of Rights, I feel I have an obligation to oppose that bill. That question is a really serious one for any senator to decide. I might argue for a model that gives those questions, whether they show up at Natural Resources or Transport, a serious look by a component of the Legal Committee that is set up to receive and examine those questions.
Senator Boniface: In many ways, I think I’m continuing the discussion on this issue. I go back to a comment that Senator Cotter made around sort of the purity of issues that come to Legal versus other committees. I chaired Defence when firearms came to that committee, as an example. I think we can’t overlook the interplay between committees. Senator Boisvenu, Senator Jaffer and myself were all on both Legal and Defence at the time. I would have argued then that firearms should go to Legal. I think in the past it has. It came to Defence because Legal was jammed up. I’d just like you to give me the purity line that you were drawing. If I use that as an example, I think the bill actually did get a very good look from a variety of people around the room with a lot of expertise around the Defence table. I don’t think it was detracted because it didn’t go to Legal.
Senator Cotter: You might be right in terms of the consideration of that bill, and I’m really not familiar with it. It seems to me that one of the roles that the Legal Committee — or some members of it — are usually well positioned to do is to examine those big questions of law that are related to an important portion of senators’ mandates. It might well be for a committee to say it’s agreed on this committee that there are some serious constitutional questions. While we may have some ability to ask the Library of Parliament to provide us with some background advice, this might be the kind of thing that Senator Joyal, Senator Boisvenu, Senator Pate — I’m making up the names, but a small subcommittee, half a dozen maybe, who might regularly do committee work but who are specifically mandated to receive and examine those kinds of questions.
The purity things tend, to me, to resolve around what I think are constitutional questions. Debates over whether this is a wise approach to the criminal law are important, but they may not rise to that same level, the way in which the examples do that Senator Joyal just identified. Those would be the categories. To be blunt about it, benefiting from some of the writing about the Senate has been a bit of a guidance for me about where I have an important responsibility. It’s so infused with let me call it big law that I think it might justify special consideration.
Senator Boniface: If I could follow up, I’m interested when we, as a Senate, split out a bill. I’ll use the marijuana bill as an example. We split it into a variety of committees. Do any of you want to speak about that? Does that solve part of the issue, or not?
Mr. Joyal: I think it has happened in the past, and I have many examples in my memory where a bill has been divided and one aspect of the bill was sent to one committee and another aspect was sent to another committee. Let’s take, for instance, the marijuana bill. The social aspect of it was sent to Social, which is totally invested with the experience and expertise of senators to deal with that, but the more Criminal Code aspects of it, of course, such as the police forces and implementation and so forth, was sent to Legal. I think when discussing the planning of their work, senators should look at the substance of the bill to make sure that, as I say and as Senator Cotter mentioned, all the important aspects of the bill have been dealt with. In your example with gun control, you more or less provided the answer in your question by stating you had Senator Boisvenu, Senator Jaffer and other senators from Legal on your committee. You then take the infusion of expertise on Legal into your committee because it happens that they are members of the committee. It illustrates that there’s a way to do it when it doesn’t exist in the very composition of the committee. There’s a possibility to see how we will deal with that aspect when there are not senators who, by the nature of their expertise and professional background, have the capacity to discuss those aspects of the bill. That’s essentially what I have in mind in relation to that.
[Translation]
The Chair: We have a lot of people wanting to ask questions. We even have people with their hand up for a second round.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you to the panel and in particular my friend and colleague, the Honourable Senator Joyal.
I want to probe a bit about the idea of the difference between what a committee does on reports and legislation. Senator Jaffer mentioned the most important — and I quote you on that — being reports. I’m not sure about that because we have obligations on legislation. But how do we prevent the reports that are done from — and we’ve all heard this all our lives — gathering dust on a shelf? How do we prevent that? Is there a way, or is it our job, as committee members, to simply generate the report? That’s the first part.
The other part of my question that I’d like comment on is that, yes, lawyers are important, and we all love lawyers, but there are other aspects that are just as important: the labour side, the social side, representation of your province or region, the business side. I would caution against jumping too far in, saying it’s necessary to have lawyers on one committee and sprinkled throughout all committees, because there are other aspects. I know we’re talking about the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but I would just want to put my caution down there and get your comment on that.
Senator Jaffer: May I start? I was the one that made a suggestion about studies. The study we did on justice delayed has really given us ammunition. Every time a justice minister is in front of us, we use it. I know all the members who were on it will — Senator Batters was, and we travelled across the country raising this issue. For me, reports have two parts. One is you travel across the country and raise the issue, so even if the report doesn’t go anywhere, the parliamentarians notice it. The second is the study itself. I can genuinely tell you that that study has been the reason we can ask so many questions. It depends on the study. As far as I know, in Legal, we have succeeded in using that material to get it further. I know that the Minister of Justice read it and responded to it, so it did not collect dust.
Senator Cotter: Just briefly on the second part — I don’t entirely know the answer to the first part — I do want to embrace the quote that we all love lawyers, firstly. I am going to benefit from that greatly. More seriously, I generally agree, Senator Wells, with your observation, but I do recall a bill that was sponsored by a distinguished member of the Senate recently on single event sports betting that significantly benefited by thoughtful legal analysis to ensure that it was going to be an effective piece of legislation. I cite it as an example where lawyers did make a constructive contribution.
Mr. Joyal: I think, Senator Wells, I will refer to the famous book again, page 221, which is “Titles of Selected Senate Studies Since 1970.” Of course, it was done up to 2000.
I think there is a way for this committee and for each committee, at the beginning of a session, to look into the studies done in the past and review their conclusions and determine if there is not an opportunity or a need to follow up on their recommendations. Then you are the author of your own master, if I could say it that way, by continuing to press the government or to bring the issue to the public’s attention on the basis of the conclusion in the studies you have done in the past. The list was done 20 years ago. The list, of course, should be actualized. This committee, like Legal or any other committee, Social or Natural Resources, could go back to those studies and say, “Where did that lead the government to go? What was the action taken?” In other words, reassess on your own after a while so that you can follow up on the effectiveness of what you have been saying.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to all of you. Welcome back, Senator Joyal.
I like the idea of the reassessment of the impact of studies. Maybe this is something the committee would recommend to the Senate to do as a whole, and not just of the studies of Legal. There have been lots of other studies.
My first question is to Senator Boisvenu. I agree with what you’re saying, that we should look at quality over quantity, and that large committee sizes often make it impossible to get all the questions asked and answered. The Senate is also evolving. We have a proliferation of groups. Do you have any suggestions as to how to deal with the principle of proportionality that is currently applied to members of committees?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The work committees do is always debated in the Senate. For example, bills are debated at third reading. Let’s assume all the groups in the Senate are not represented on committees. Those senators are still allowed to participate in the committee’s meetings, albeit with fewer powers and responsibilities than the other senators. They also have an opportunity to have their say on all bills at third reading.
Basically, if we know the committee has the expertise to examine a bill, is it necessary to have all the groups represented on committees? The choice is still the same: quantity or efficiency. Which one should come first? I’ll let you ruminate on that.
The Chair: That’s an important question, especially since we also have regional representation, for the most part. We haven’t talked about that, so I’ll give each of you a minute and a half to comment, if you like.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I like that recommendation. I hope we will see that in our report.
My next question is to anyone who would wish to answer. The impact of legislation, in particular the Criminal Code, has an outsized influence on minority communities — indigenized, racialized and religious minorities and others. Outside of ensuring that witnesses represent this community, do you not believe that the decision makers, which means Senate members, should also represent this reality? Do you not believe senators on the Legal Committee should also, to some extent, be representative of the outsized impact of the law on indigenized, racialized and religious minority communities?
Senator Jaffer: I agree with you completely. That’s where I do not agree with my colleagues who say less than 12, because there are all kinds of representations. Outside this room, I would challenge anybody, if they’re in a different party, to say, “No, my party will not have a member on certain committees.” That’s one point. Also, minorities bring a different aspect, a different reality, to what’s happening in any committee. Therefore, I agree with you that we have to balance, and therefore that’s the reason Legal has 12 and other committees have 12.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have no objection to there being 12 people on a committee, but when you have only an hour with a panel of witnesses, 12 people taking turns isn’t an efficient way to proceed. Take, for example, the U.S. Senate. When senators there study a bill, they spend four or five hours on it with a panel of five or six witnesses. They have time to really explore all the arguments. We have only two minutes to ask a question. In many cases, there isn’t even enough time to ask a follow-up question. If a witness says something, we don’t have a chance to challenge it or ask them to back it up. That limits how thorough we can be in our analysis.
[English]
Senator Batters: It’s a pleasure to see all of you here today, especially our colleague Senator Joyal. It is good to see you back.
I’ve been on the Legal Committee since I got to the Senate 10 years ago. It’s my favourite committee. I think everyone who knows me knows that. I had the brief time to serve as deputy chair and, for a few years, also on the steering committee. I really appreciate all of your work to make this such an excellent committee of the Senate.
There are a couple of points I wanted to make in responding to some of the other points. Senator Cotter brought up one point. I wanted to say that the Legal Committee actually has, many times, had the agreement of the Senate to meet concurrently with Senate sittings, especially when we’ve been doing pre-studies or had very significant government legislation. We have made that work before.
On the point about committee members, I do agree that it can be very challenging even now with 12 members. It was extremely challenging when there was a point when we had boosted up to 15 members, especially because holding the government to account is a key part of our role as senators, especially opposition members. There is often very important government legislation, and we need to bring that in our questioning, and it can be challenging if you have to limit it to just a couple of minutes.
One point as well that I just was thinking of as I was sitting here is the 2019 election and the 2021 election. We generally have a study when the Chief Electoral Officer brings their report forward. We still have not had a study at Legal Committee of either of those elections, and we’re now in 2023. It’s just absolutely unacceptable. That was an important part of our role.
Turning to the question I wanted to ask, three of the four senators here testifying served on the Legal Committee for many, many years. Given that vast experience, I would just like a brief answer from each of Senators Jaffer, Boisvenu and Joyal: What was the one time — and if you can just limit it to one — during your tenure on the Legal Committee that you thought the Legal Committee worked the absolute best and why?
Senator Jaffer: Medical aid in dying. We had the time, because we had extra time. The Senate gave us more time. It was a bill where the committee was able to really thoroughly study it. As you know, we studied everything, and we were able to produce a report that we spent hours and hours on. That was my highlight.
Senator Batters: We also did a lot of that study during time when the Senate wasn’t sitting, too.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I think it was the study on court delays. First of all, we went out and met with members of the public. We met with people on the ground practising law. We went to the regions. I really felt then that the work the committee was doing was for the people.
Justice is central to people’s lives. Whenever we pass a bill, we are having an impact on people’s lives, whether they are victims or accused. Being in the Senate bubble and not having access to that perspective means that we aren’t doing our job properly. If we go out and meet with people for the purposes of a study, the impact is twofold: education and legislation. We should do more of that.
[English]
Mr. Joyal: Thank you for your question, senator.
The single most important debate that I have been through at Legal was the extradition bill in 2000. You were not in the chamber, unfortunately, at that time, but I’m sure you would have taken part in it. The bill had a section giving the Minister of Justice the sole authority to decide to extradite a person to a country where the death penalty was imposed. A single person in his or her office could decide to extradite somebody, for instance, to Washington State.
That section of the bill was never canvassed in the House of Commons. No one brought attention to it. No one saw that, in fact, we were reintroducing the death penalty through the back door. When it came to the Senate, some of my colleagues who were also lawyers, and I think of former Senator Grafstein, whom some of you know, looked into the bill. We studied the bill very seriously, and we said, “Wait a minute. This is very serious. It’s about the life and death of a person.” What did the House of Commons do? What did the Minister of Justice at the time do? Silence. No one raised that issue. We started studying the bill, inviting experts, inviting people from the prison system and inviting Foreign Affairs. We asked what they do when there is an extradition request from another country. We debated that bill for three months. We finally brought an amendment to the bill. The amendment was defeated by two or three votes. The bill was adopted and sanctioned.
At the same time, the Supreme Court of Canada had a case dealing exactly with this issue, the Burns and Rafay case. I talked to my colleagues on the Legal Committee and asked what we should do. We decided to take the minutes of the committee and send them, without any explanation or anything, just the stack of the minutes of the committee, to each and every Justice of the Supreme Court. In their decision, they concluded that the extradition law was in breach of the Charter, and they mentioned that they had taken note of the discussions that took place in Parliament.
To me, that was a clear illustration of the role of this institution and of the Legal Committee. We did study an issue that was totally under the radar of the House of Commons. We debated it in depth in the Senate. We tried to amend the bill. The government pulled the whip line. It was an horrendous period. I remember it as if it happened yesterday. We failed in the Senate, but we won in the court of justice and in the court of public opinion. This to me was the single most important debate I ever took part in in the chamber.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Marwah: Thank you, colleagues, for being here.
Senator Boisvenu, you mentioned that one of the issues was the large number of senators on each committee. I tend to agree with that in terms of reducing; that would be a good idea.
Someone also raised the possibility of having a subcommittee to deal with issues, but having a subcommittee doesn’t necessarily solve the problem because you are really doubling down on the workload of the four or five senators that you picked to be on the subcommittee.
I would like your thoughts on taking that one step further, to have non-members of the Legal Committee be part of the subcommittee. In that way, you could bring other lawyers and non-lawyers to matters with the main expertise to help you look at other matters but who are not necessarily on the Legal Committee. I would like your thoughts on that. I believe CIBA just implemented something along those lines. I would like your thoughts on whether that would be practical for LCJC.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: You know the passion I have for this committee. I’m just as passionate today as I was 14 years ago. If you told me I had to work 20 more hours a week, I would. I think if you asked all the committee members to work four more hours a week, they would.
It’s the same when I think of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. The members have a passion for the committee. They don’t keep track of their hours.
I’m confident that, if you asked the committee members tomorrow for volunteers to sit on the subcommittee, you would need more spots. I don’t think finding people willing to do the work is a problem.
Your proposal would work: appointing other senators with an interest in the subject to the subcommittee. I think both things are possible.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Since it was my point, may I respond? I don’t agree, Senator Marwah, that you would be doubling work because, as I said, you would be doing different work. As Defence does veterans work, that’s separate work. It would be separate work, but the work that this mandate neglects would be done by subcommittee. For example, the statutory review would be done by subcommittee, and the main committee would be dealing with the other legislation. I don’t think it’s a doubling up. In this way, the whole mandate of the committee is looked after. At the moment, it isn’t, and for years, it has not been.
Mr. Joyal: If I may respond very quickly to Senator Marwah, I think — Mr. Thompson could check — that in the Rules, there is a possibility for a committee to have as a member someone from outside with no right to vote. There was an old provision in the rules before. In other words, the person would be a part of the committee would not be a voting person but would be there to share expertise and knowledge of the issue. That could help a subcommittee on very specific mandates to discharge its responsibility in relation to one issue.
Senator Marwah: In fact, colleagues, that was my main point. Besides the workload, it is the fact that you could bring other expertise onto a subcommittee that perhaps you couldn’t do fully in the main committee. You expand the range of views that you have in a subcommittee studying any particular subject.
Mr. Joyal: A kind of amicus curiae, like courts do when they have a difficult issue and they ask for a lawyer with special expertise to be there.
Senator Cotter: Building on Senator Marwah’s last intervention, solving his own problem in a way, it depends on the mandate of such a subcommittee. For example, if the mandate were generally to examine the constitutionality of laws that pass through the Senate, let’s say — making this up for a moment — you might want expertise, and it might be significant legal expertise. If the mandate of the subcommittee was to undertake a study on sentencing — which is one of the topics that gets discussed from time to time — and report back to the committee, you might want a greater diversity of views and contributors there. The answer might be partly yes and partly you might go a different way.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we are almost out of time, so Senator Ataullahjan’s will be the last question.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, colleagues. It is very nice to see you, Senator Joyal.
Senator Boisvenu, you said something that piqued my interest. You said that perhaps Legal should sit for eight hours a week. I am on four committees, and sometimes I struggle to do the work because we only have so many days and so many hours in every day. Do you think that for certain committees that have a very heavy workload, those senators should be confined to two committees? What about Monday sittings? I know the Human Rights Committee sits for four hours on Monday. Senator Jaffer, if you remember when we were doing the cyberbullying study, we did a whole-day sitting. Maybe that’s an option sometimes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’m going to refer to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. It used to sit from one o’clock to five o’clock on Mondays. Members made the most of the time they spent here.
I definitely think we could take advantage of Friday mornings and Monday afternoons. Those are windows of time we could use.
I said that the committee could sit for eight hours a week or that a subcommittee could be created. Both are options. However, if the committee continues to meet for four hours a week, it will never be able to truly fulfill its mission of examining government bills and private bills. We have about 250 private members’ bills and 50 private bills. That’s huge, and we’ve studied about 10 or so.
Two options are available. Create a subcommittee, which could deal with less crucial matters, thereby freeing up the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or increase the workload or the number of hours.
The Chair: That’s a good suggestion. We’ll keep that in mind in the course of our study. I think we’ve heard a lot today that we can use as we think about next steps.
Our sincerest thanks to the senators for participating today. Thank you very much, Senator Joyal, for going to the trouble of being here today. We were delighted to see you again. We will keep you posted. As we move forward, we may need to invite you back. Who knows?
Senator Boisvenu: Madam Chair, it is us who thank you for the opportunity to be part of this discussion. It was a very enlightening experience.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now suspend to bring in the next panel of senators.
Now, I would like to welcome two senators who are very active on a committee that is quite important to us, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. With us are Senator Cormier and Senator Poirier. They will give us insight into the challenges facing their committee and the way they see their mandate and mission, and share any recommendations they have.
Hon. René Cormier: Thank you and good morning, fellow senators. I have my Clark Gable voice this morning, so I apologize. I hope you can hear me clearly. I don’t have Clark Gable’s hair, though.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for the opportunity to share some information and views regarding the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and its essential role in Canada’s Parliament.
I am pleased to be here alongside my fellow senator and the committee’s deputy chair, the Honourable Rose-May Poirier. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking to you today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I have been on the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages since December 2016, and I have chaired the committee since 2018, after the Honourable Claudette Tardif left. I want to recognize the tremendous amount of work she did as committee chair.
My remarks will focus on the committee’s mandate, work, membership and functioning.
[English]
Although it is concerned with respect for the language rights of Canadians and the principle of equality of the two official languages, it examines all matters relating to the Official Languages Act and pays particular attention to the role and commitment of the federal government in promoting English and French in Canadian society and in enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minorities. Although its mandate is broad and allows it to examine any matter relating to official languages in general, which includes constitutional language rights guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as language rights guaranteed in any other federal statute, for example the Broadcasting Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Language Skills Act and the Criminal Code, it is mandated to review the application of the OLA and the application of its regulations, including the official languages communication with and service to the public regulation, and eventually part 7 regulations. It is also mandated to review the annual reports of departments and the Commissioner of Official Languages.
[Translation]
During the 8 parliaments and 14 sessions since its creation, the Official Languages Committee has reported on six bills, including Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, a Senate bill sponsored by a member of the committee. As a result, Part VII of the Official Languages Act was strengthened, with federal institutions being required to take positive measures and people being given the ability to seek remedy before the courts in cases of non-compliance. That right set out in the Official Languages Act led to the 2022 Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development). The decision prompted the government to amend Bill C-13, which is currently before Parliament.
As you know, the committee studied the subject matter of Bill C-13 in 2022 as part of a pre-study. The committee is eagerly awaiting the bill’s referral to the Senate, to provide sober second thought on the bill as passed by the House of Commons.
The committee has also studied bills that do not relate to the application of the Official Languages Act, such as Bill C-419, pertaining to the language skills required for certain Governor-in-Council appointments, and Bill S-14, concerning the adoption of an officially bilingual national anthem.
Since its creation, the committee has tabled 26 reports further to in-depth studies. Its most recent report focuses on francophone immigration to minority communities and will be tabled in the Senate this week. In addition, the committee has tabled five reports following a comprehensive two-year study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. This work led to Bill C-13, introduced by the government in March 2022, as well as its predecessor, Bill S-32, in June 2021.
The committee has also tabled numerous reports on the implementation of Part VII of the act and its various facets, including French-language learning, bilingualism among young people, immigration, the vitality of Quebec’s English-speaking communities, francophone arts and culture, education in the language of the minority, and access to justice in both official languages. Committee studies like the upcoming one on minority-language health services are an opportunity to examine broader issues from a language standpoint, which is often overlooked by other Senate committees.
The committee has reported on the language obligations of specific federal institutions, including Air Canada and CBC/Radio-Canada. The committee’s work was even cited by the Federal Court of Canada in its 2012 decision in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. CBC/Radio-Canada. The committee has also published reports on other issues of the day, such as linguistic duality at the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver and respect for language rights when head offices of federal institutions relocate, in the wake of the Canadian Tourism Commission’s move to Vancouver.
Since its creation, the Official Languages Committee has travelled to eight provinces for fact-finding missions, including Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince Edward Island.
In terms of the committee’s membership and functioning, the committee has met on Monday evenings since its creation. That has posed, and continues to pose, a challenge to the participation of senators who are not from Quebec or Ontario. Since the beginning, the committee has been made up of English-speaking and French-speaking senators from Quebec and outside Quebec — Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — and sometimes English-speaking senators from outside Quebec — British Columbia and Manitoba.
The committee has always been chaired by a French-speaking senator from outside Quebec, and the deputy chair has usually been an English-speaking or French-speaking senator from Quebec. The committee has always had nine members and has always relied on the support of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to plan future business of the committee, reply to correspondence and requests to appear before the committee, approve final reports of the committee, and work with the communications team to promote the committee’s work and reports.
Here are some important facts about our committee: the committee’s decisions have almost always been the product of consensus and collegiality. Top of mind for all senators on the committee is the fact that they represent linguistic minorities with constitutionally protected language rights.
I will leave it there. I look forward to answering your questions and taking part in the discussion.
Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Thank you for inviting me before the committee. It’s a real pleasure.
[English]
Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. In all my years in the Senate — 13 years last February — this is my first time sitting at the end of the table as a witness. Hopefully, I can provide you with answers and insight on the work of the Official Languages Committee.
For most of my time as a senator, I have been a member of the Official Languages Committee, and since 2015, I have been the deputy chair every year except during the 43rd Parliament.
[Translation]
I have also sat on a number of other committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. The close relationship between the Official Languages Committee and francophone minority communities is something that sets us apart. That is significant. We often say — both within and outside the chamber — that the Senate’s role is to be the voice of minorities, and the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages does an excellent job of fulfilling that role. It’s a committee that is attuned to communities and their needs.
[English]
But our scope does not fall solely for francophone communities outside of Quebec. We are present with anglophone communities in Quebec who are a linguistic minority community in Canada. For example, in March 2011, the committee produced a report on the vitality of the Quebec English-speaking communities where the committee visited various communities. We also ensure to invite them as witnesses during our studies to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are taken into consideration.
[Translation]
Under its mandate, the committee has the latitude to complete its studies, while differentiating itself from other committees. The committee studies fewer bills than other Senate committees, but, as the voice of minority language communities, the Official Languages Committee contributes to legislation in other ways.
The special studies undertaken by the committee are crucially important. They help to give minority language communities a voice in Parliament and thus ensure that the government’s ears remain open. Consider this. The committee began its study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act in 2017. In reporting on the study, the committee asked, not whether the government should implement its recommendations, but when. That created a window of opportunity, prompting the government of the day and all the political parties to prioritize the modernization of the Official Languages Act and do something about the decline of French across the country. The work we do is even more important when it comes to strengthening the values of linguistic duality from coast to coast to coast.
[English]
In my opinion, the Official Languages Committee is unique and important to the Senate fulfilling its mission of being a voice for the unrepresented.
It is my pleasure to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here today.
Senator Cormier, I want to ask you about the importance of travel in a committee’s mandate. When you travel across the country and meet people, how much value does that bring to the committee’s work?
Senator Cormier: Thank you so much for that question. It is a very important question.
One of the privileges we have as a member of the committee is to meet citizens where they live and where we can see what their challenges are. That’s very important. Like I said, the Official Languages Committee went on different missions, and I think it’s at the core of the challenge and the issue of this committee. We deal with constitutionality and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we need to know the context in which the linguistic minorities work and live. It’s very important for us. I think we could travel more, but we are aware of the time and the money. I think it’s crucial.
Senator Ataullahjan: I asked that question, senator, because you mentioned the budget. It’s becoming harder and harder to travel. I’ve always found that in committees, what we hear in the Senate and what we hear from witnesses is a different reality when you go and meet Canadians on their home ground and ask questions. I hope at some point it will be easier for us to get back to that.
Senator Cormier: I can give you some examples. We did travel — Senator Poirier and I were on these trips — to Winnipeg, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and we met with different stakeholders from different sectors concerning the Official Languages Act. It was enlightening for us and helped us in the long study that we did on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. That study took two years. I think of the impact travel had on our study and in understanding the evolving realities. It’s not fixed in time. The challenges are evolving, and it’s very important for us to travel. Thank you for that question.
[Translation]
The Chair: In other words, if I understand correctly, you think it’s very worthwhile. Although you can meet and speak with stakeholders remotely, travelling to a place gives you an opportunity to see what the conditions are on the ground, to meet with more people and to better understand what people are dealing with in their community.
[English]
Senator Cormier: We’re speaking about communities here, not only about individuals. Communities are very important too.
Senator Batters: Thank you to both of you for being here today and for all your important work on this committee. I know you have both been on this committee for quite some time.
I wanted to ask about your committee’s reports and what process you use. Different committees have different processes when drafting reports and determining recommendations. Does your steering committee play a particular role in the drafting of the report and the recommendations and then you bring that to the full committee? How do you work that?
Senator Cormier: I’m pretty proud of the fact that in our committee, we bring everything to the whole committee. In terms of reports, for example, with the last report on francophone immigration, a draft was made from what we heard, and then we brought that draft to the whole committee and had a conversation on that. Then we made, of course, changes. We can make changes to that. We go back and forth a couple of times, if necessary, to get to the final version that everybody is comfortable with. We’re mainly looking for consensus, and we make sure that in our reports, one person, one witness, can say one thing. Is it strong enough that we put it in the report? We’re working on that. I have to say that, as a chair, being able to count on the members to make sure that the report represents exactly what we heard is a good thing for us. That’s the way we usually work this.
Senator Batters: Just so I’m clear on this, does the steering committee prepare the draft with the analysts and clerk and then bring that to the committee? Or do you start right with the full committee in coming to that draft?
Senator Poirier: The way we start is once we’ve done the committee work, then our analysts and the people who work on our committee with us will do the first draft copy. Many times, that first draft copy will be sent to us, asking for our opinion, and we give permission just by answering that we’re okay with it at this point — it’s a draft — to be sent to all the committee members. Then it’s sent off to all the committee members where it’s a discussion and we go over all the parts and listen to what everybody has to say.
When we get to the end of it — and correct me if I’m wrong — which we did this week, normally then we will say, “Okay, we’ve heard what you have to say. This report has to be finalized by a certain date. Is the committee comfortable with steering making sure all of this has been looked at and it’s done?” And 99.9% of the time they are.
If there ever should be a little issue, we’re very open. That’s what happened this week. There was a little issue, even after all of that was done. A few of our colleagues had a bit of discomfort with a couple of words, so we had an in camera session last night before our meeting just to listen to why they had those concerns and then to make that final decision at the end. There is big respect among all of the members to make sure that they are comfortable. With the Official Languages Act, every situation in Canada is very delicate because you’re always dealing with minority groups.
Senator Batters: How do you decide who you’re going to call as witnesses for your committee? Is that something that steering comes to a decision about? What challenges have you faced on the Official Languages Committee in selecting witnesses?
Senator Cormier: Actually, we work the same way as with the reports. We have a first list. We ask the analysts for a first list, and the members of the committee can send their proposals and suggestions for witnesses. Then we create a list from that. We do look at that list, but we usually come back to the committee to say, “Okay, these are the people we think are important to meet with.” Sometimes we’ll receive other suggestions to make sure that we have a good balance, because it’s really important to have a good balance, as you know, for witnesses. That’s the way we do it.
Senator Poirier: As steering, though, sometimes the list of suggestions is extremely long for the amount of time we have. At one point, we welcome all of it, and then we look at it in steering again and say, “Okay, this is the number of hours, and this is the number of meetings we have. This group will probably bring about the same amount of stuff that the other group will bring.” If there are some that we cannot see but some of the members feel are important, we would ask if they would like to send a written submission to the committee.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here today.
It is interesting. Every committee does bring uniqueness, and some of this process work is quite different across committees. I’d like to ask you, as chairs and leaders with your committee, what does it feel like for you now with the possibility of these conversations we’re having? Some of those possibilities are different across committees. One might be that there may be committees that have different times designated to them. There is already a bit right now, but it might be more purposeful and more explicit where we can only make so many things work each week. How do we make that happen? There might be almost like a streaming in the different lengths of committees. Committees may have fewer people on them. In your example, a committee may be on a Monday for three years and then it may be changed to a Thursday or moved throughout the calendar week. Those are three things: the size of the committee, the honoured rotation in the week of the committee, and the length of time of the committee. I’m curious what your thoughts are from your perspective.
Senator Cormier: Our committee has been sitting on Mondays since its creation. I don’t understand why it has to sit on Mondays. It brings a lot of challenges in terms of travel, especially for members who are from far away, outside of Quebec and Ontario, and to attracting members. Some of our colleagues told me they wouldn’t sit on OLLO because it’s on Mondays. I think it’s an issue and we should think about some kind of rotation. It has to be functional, but I think it would be important. I know there are other committees that sit on Mondays, but I find it challenging, as a chair, to make sure that we have quorum. That being said, we have very good participation. Most of the time, 85% of our members are around the table, so that’s good.
In terms of the size, I find this committee so large, 15 members. It’s huge. Our committee has 9 members. There are a lot of advantages to that, but there are challenges if people do not attend.
I don’t know if I answered the three of your questions.
Senator Poirier: I have a couple of comments I’d like to add.
I do say it is a challenge for Monday night. Senator Cormier is right that there are so many people that don’t want a Monday night. It’s not necessarily because it’s a Monday night; it’s the issue of travelling. I have to tell you, honestly, it’s worse since COVID because there are fewer flights, there are more cancellations and there are more delays. Even for me to get here for my Monday night meeting, up until a couple of weeks ago I had to leave Sunday morning to be able to be here for a 5 pm meeting. When you are only home for the weekend and you have to leave Sunday morning, it kind of makes it a challenge. That’s definitely one issue that’s there.
The other issue that’s there — and this could be delicate, but I think it needs to be said — is that many people, including myself at the very beginning, see OLLO, first off when you talk about it, as the committee for the francophones.
[Translation]
It’s known as the French committee. People don’t realize that the committee is responsible for examining Canada’s official languages, which are English and French.
[English]
I look at my background. When my colleague, Senator Mockler, asked me to be part of Official Languages, I said, “No, no, keep me away from that.” I was born and raised in a francophone family where we only spoke French, but there was no French school. I went to school in English. Until I became a parliamentarian in the legislature of New Brunswick, I couldn’t read a word of French. I started a little bit by raising my kids in a French school. I thought, “How am I going to be able to participate?” As you noticed when I read my notes, I still have words that I have difficulty with and sometimes have to change when I’m reading in French. Over the years, I became comfortable with it.
Many times, when we’re trying to recruit new members — and we’ve had a few completely anglophone people come, but it has always been a challenge.
[Translation]
Getting more English-speaking members on the Official Languages Committee has always been a challenge. It’s easier to attract French speakers. It’s too bad that the committee is perceived to represent only the minority language — French — because that’s not the reality.
[English]
That’s not what the committee is all about at all. That is a reality. We constantly as a committee all work to make sure that people understand that we are there for the minority of the anglophone in Quebec, for the minority francophone across the country, and both are extremely important. We are there to make sure that equal rights are there for the two official languages of our country. That’s really important.
Senator M. Deacon: From the experience the two of you have from your committee and looking out across other committees, what are those one or two things you’re using to say, “You know what? We are really successful as a committee. We’re hitting the mark. We think that we are fulfilling the mandate, and this is how we can say to the public our committee has been successful”?
Senator Poirier: The committee is great, but honestly, I have to say I’m also on Social, and we get along great there too and have a great committee there too. I’m assuming it is the same with most committees. When I was on Fisheries, it was the same, and we did well. It’s about respect.
You asked about the hours and whether we need more hours and why some committees have more. We are not a committee that gets a large amount of legislation, as some committees do. I realized that when my colleagues who were here before were talking about the need for extra hours because of the amount of legislation, I see the need in Social where we have two spots a week, and that’s because we have not only reports we work on but the extra legislation that does come to us at Social.
There’s a big respect. We work on consensus a lot. If there is something that we really have concerns about in a committee, we share it and we try to understand why they have that concern. I’ve never seen an issue, honestly, in any of the committees that I’ve worked with. If there’s something that we feel that is not right and that needs to be addressed, I can easily call my colleague, the chair, and we’ll have a chat and bring it to steering, and it usually all gets worked out very easily.
[Translation]
The Chair: This is a small aside. Here, we haven’t gotten into the habit of allocating time for each question yet. We are experimenting with this kind of study. That was all I wanted to say.
[English]
Senator Woo: Good morning. Your committee has a special relationship with the Commissioner of Official Languages. In some ways, your committee is the only committee that has such a tight and particular relationship with an officer of Parliament. Can you say a bit more about the relationship with the commissioner’s office? Is there some overlap between what they do and what you do? Is there room for closer collaboration? Just talk a bit more about that relationship.
Senator Cormier: They overlap. There are common concerns, for sure. The role of the commissioner is to, of course, receive complaints from citizens concerning non-respect of the Official Languages Act, and it is not our role to receive complaints. Of course, we have the mandate to have the commissioner appear at the committee and to speak about his reports. We had discussions about that. Of course, when he’s before the committee, we have conversations about, for example, Bill C-13 right now. We ask him questions. The relationship is close, but at the same time there’s a distance because we still have to keep in mind that we are not commissioners; we’re senators. I’m not sure I’m answering the question, but we always read the reports and talk about the reports and have conversations about the reports, because they’re very important. It’s a way to evaluate the challenges that communities are going through. That’s what I would say to this point.
Senator Woo: I’m just trying to get an understanding of the relationship. The commissioner presumably has some kind of research secretariat that does studies or collects complaints, for sure. Do you draw on the ongoing work of the commissioner, or do you really just intersect with the commissioner when a report comes out or when there’s a bill?
Senator Cormier: We use the data and the research and the results of their research. We use that all the time in committee. We quote the commissioner at almost every meeting because the research he’s doing is important and relevant. He won’t do research for us, of course. We do quote the commissioner very often.
Senator Poirier: There’s a good relationship between the commissioner’s office and the OLLO committee, definitely. We do meet with him regularly. He makes us aware of what’s going on. When the reports come out, he often will ask even just to see if we can have a virtual meeting with me personally, and he’ll do it with him personally, to go over the report so that we understand what he’s facing and what challenges he has. When we did the study on the Official Languages Act, we met with him also at that point to understand how his job can be easier, how best can he answer the complaints he’s getting to address and what’s missing that he feels should happen, He will share things like that with us. If we’re doing a certain study on certain things, sometimes if we feel that he can play a role in helping us or give us some perspectives, we will invite him. There is a good relationship with the Commissioner of Official Languages. I think at the end of the day, we’re all there for the same reasons.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Woo touched upon the question I was going to ask. I will go at it from a different angle. The Official Languages Commissioner has a budget of about $5 million a year, so it’s very substantial. I’m curious. What work do you do that is completely separate from the work they do, or what work do they do that’s completely separate from the work the committee does? Is there a lot of overlap in the committee in the work?
Senator Cormier: I will answer this in French, senator, because I will be more comfortable answering it in French.
[Translation]
The work doesn’t overlap. I should point out that the new Official Languages Act will probably result in a stronger mandate for the Commissioner of Official Languages. The hope is that the commissioner will have significantly more power to ensure compliance with official languages obligations within the public service. The commissioner already has some power in that regard.
I don’t think there’s any overlap. We carry out a number of studies that the Commissioner of Official Languages does not. We carry out on-the-ground studies on various aspects and in various sectors that the commissioner does not. The commissioner’s office does a lot of work and research. As I said, it receives complaints that we do not. It has the role of a watchdog. When it comes to compliance with the Official Languages Act, one of the commissioner’s roles is to promote both official languages, and in that respect, the commissioner has tools that the Senate committee does not.
[English]
Senator Poirier: The other thing that’s important is that at OLLO we do a lot of good studies on reports that we put out. A comment we’ve heard a lot is from witnesses who say they appreciate our reports because they become a tool for them. They are a voice for minority groups. The report as a tool gives them something they can use to lobby government and political parties, because the report has been published and comments have been made. It’s a road map for them. It brings them a step closer to always having the same services and rights in a linguistic community where they are in a minority situation. I don’t think that’s a role that the commissioner plays at all. It’s completely different. As my colleague said, we do not take the complaints. We’re not the ones who can respond to the complaints and have the data on the complaints. That’s information he provides to us through his annual report, which is public. It’s completely different.
Senator Cormier: If I may give the example of the two-year study we did on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, the anglophone community from Quebec took that report and worked with it. They appreciated the content of the report, and as Senator Poirier said, it became a tool for them, as it does for other communities. We’re proud of our reports. I think we’re doing a good job.
Senator Poirier: The work the committee did on our last report was the base and maybe the beginning of an important bill that will be coming, Bill C-13. We often ask the government for a response from our reports. Somebody said, “How can we get a response when the report sits on a desk?” We ask, most of the time.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you get a response?
Senator Poirier: Sometimes. Getting a response can take a while. Nevertheless, we do it.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Are there deficiencies with the official languages office that you’ve identified? Are there things they could do better than they do? I’m curious about your assessment of the job they’ve done over the years and the job they’re presently doing in terms of managing language.
Senator Cormier: I think we can always do a better job as senators, and I think the commissioner can also do a better job in a certain way, but I don’t have specific examples of where I think he should work better. The relationship we have with the commissioner is transparent and honest. When we have something to say to the commissioner, we say it. We have that transparency in our conversations. I can’t identify something specifically where they should work better.
Senator Poirier: The only thing I could say, which I think was outside of the commissioner’s ability, is that when there are complaints, sometimes he was limited in terms of what he could do about the complaint and any sanctions that could be offered. I think some of that may be addressed in Bill C-13, which will be coming. That’s not anything about his fault or what he can do better. It was just that it was not the way his office was set up. That was not a possibility. You get complaints that come in. One we get a lot is the ability through the airports with the official languages, but you can only do so much. He was limited in terms of what he could do in sanctions.
Senator Cormier: The number of complaints has gone up tremendously in the last years, and I don’t know if there are resources for the commissioner in terms of having capacity to deal with the complaints in a timely manner. There are a lot of complaints. They were through the pandemic, but there are complaints all the time. It’s more of a challenge. Resources could be an issue.
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses.
You had mentioned in a previous response the predominance of French-speaking people on this committee, and Senator Poirier mentioned specifically that it’s sometimes difficult to get anglophones on it. Is there any special emphasis to get the voices of not just English-only, and perhaps English-only in Quebec, obviously, because of the predominance of French and the provincial laws that have been enacted and that could be seen as going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Has there been any work done specifically which looks after the English rights in Quebec?
Senator Cormier: Of course, we take into consideration the challenges that the anglophone community has in Quebec. But I will say that, as for the members, I’ve been lobbying the different groups saying that we need someone from the anglophone community around the table. Membership of committees can be an issue. To have diverse expertise and to make sure, in the case of the Official Languages Committee, that there are anglophones around the table, we usually have at least one member who is from the anglophone community, but it’s not always the case. As Senator Poirier said previously, we are very sensitive and aware of that, and we make sure that we consider the challenges the anglophone community has in Quebec. Of course, we all know that both official languages are equal in rights. The challenges are different sometimes between the two communities, but we have to take that into consideration. We have to make sure that the anglophone voice around the table is there. I have to be honest that it’s a challenge sometimes, because with the way the committees are constituted, who decides? It’s a message that we can send to all groups. It’s important to have around the table not only francophones from outside Quebec, but it’s also important to have anglophones and all kinds of expertise around the table too.
Senator Poirier: Sometimes when somebody doesn’t live in a situation where they’re in a minority, it’s hard for them to understand what you’re going through when you’re in a minority situation. That’s why I think sometimes it’s important to not just have only francophones. We always work hard to have somebody on the anglophone side. We have had some. Senator Jaffer was here for a while.
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Senator Poirier: She speaks very well in French, but she has an anglophone background also. We have had different ones, and we welcome other members.
Senator Cormier: We have interpretation, so if somebody doesn’t speak French, they can be a member of the committee.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. My question was about the composition of the committee, but it was more about the output and the representation that the Senate is required to do on minority rights. Certainly, English would be a minority right that is challenged in Quebec. I don’t think there would be any disagreement on that. You say that Canada is officially a bilingual country, but, of course, we know there’s not fairness across the board on that. That’s something that I think needs to have some greater emphasis.
Senator Poirier: Just a comment I want to make: Since we’re both from New Brunswick, which is the only official bilingual province in the country and where the francophone population is roughly between 30 and 33%, we’ve lived this all our lives, so we understand it.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question about the groups. With the previous panel, we talked about the proportional representation of the groups. Are you encountering any challenges in terms of the new reality in the Senate? I’m talking, of course, about the fact that there are so many groups. Are all the groups represented on your committee?
Senator Cormier: Recruiting members from all the groups can be a challenge. One group wasn’t consistently represented. I would say there is an effort to ensure that every group is represented.
No doubt everyone will show up when Bill C-13 is referred to the Senate, given how important the legislation is for Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It’s 11:30 a.m., which means we are out of time. Thank you for appearing before the committee. It was very instructive and helpful. See you next time.
(The committee adjourned.)