THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 25, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:31 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a) of the Rules of the Senate, to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome, everyone. For those watching or listening, we are the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. My name is Diane Bellemare, and I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting at my left.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. Marty Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, from New Brunswick.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are continuing the study we started a few weeks ago on committee structure and mandates. Today, we have a first panel of witnesses to discuss the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and a second panel to discuss the Committee on Human Rights.
Without further ado, I will turn over the floor to our two first witnesses, Senator Galvez and Senator Massicotte, starting with the committee chair, Senator Galvez.
Senator Galvez: Thank you for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be with you today to testify about Senate committee structure and mandates. I would like to begin by mentioning that although I’m testifying as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, my testimony reflects my own personal findings and observations.
According to the Rules of the Senate, the ENEV committee’s mandate is to review legislation and study issues generally related to energy, the environment, natural resources and climate change.
This mandate is logical and consistent, because from a scientific, economic and social affairs perspective, these four subjects are intrinsically linked and must be studied holistically. Moreover, they represent the entire and vast majority of the Canadian economy, accounting for 19% of Canada’s gross domestic product, or GDP, not to mention that about half of the world’s GDP depends on nature.
[English]
According to ENEV analysts’ records, since 2006, the committee has published a total of 65 reports, 49 of which were legislative reports examining bills. For the 16 non-legislative special studies, 11 of those were related to energy, oil and gas.
It is alarming, based upon what I just explained, that 11 of these special studies were related to energy, with a focus on oil and gas. While for one province, the oil and gas sector represents 20% of its GDP, for Canada it represents only 4%.
Only one or two studies have specifically addressed purely environmental or climate issues. While the committee is master of its own work, it is important to mention that historically the Energy Committee has focused its efforts toward natural resources and, more specifically, oil and gas.
Another reminder is that the energy produced in Canada is approximately 11% coal, oil and gas, compared to 60% hydro, 15% nuclear and 6% wind and solar. Thus, from an energy perspective, more attention could be put into renewable energy sources.
A recurring issue that does not help with committee work — and ENEV is no exception — is that too often the committee can only meet once a week due to frequent cancellations for Tuesday evening meetings. I urge your committee, and the Senate as a whole, to find adequate solutions for this issue.
Frequent cancellations delay studies that are of great importance to Canadians. Cancellations waste valuable taxpayer money as we invite witnesses and pay for travel expenses. They also give the Senate a bad reputation among key stakeholders and organizations that take time and resources to provide valuable testimony for our studies.
I would also like to point out that the ENEV committee mandate has many affinities with other Senate committees, such as Fisheries and Oceans, and Agriculture and Forestry. Given that these themes are interconnected, it could be beneficial to sometimes coordinate studies with these committees. We could benefit from a more de-compartmentalized approach to study.
A recent example is that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications studied the impact of extreme weather events on the telecommunications and transport infrastructure. While transport infrastructure does not include other critical infrastructure — such as housing, buildings and agricultural lands — that are also affected by fires, heat domes or floods. Science tells us that 80% of cases of extreme weather events are related to climate change — a subject that is extremely relevant to the ENEV committee.
On another note, as we prioritize government legislation, it could be useful for committees to review the mandate letters of ministers related to their respective mandates as a way to inform committee decisions in assessing how best to be useful and relevant in our studies.
Finally, I would like to address the challenge of the current committee structure in a Senate that is now mostly composed of independent, non-party-affiliated groups.
Since three out of four groups are not bound by party platforms or ideology, members within a group don’t all adhere to the same thoughts or ideas. This means that the representative of a group on the steering committee cannot speak on behalf of their fellow members unless they regularly check in with their colleagues. Unfortunately, this check-in does not happen in all committees and decisions are made with very little input from the committee as a whole.
On top of that, steering committees do not follow any proportionality rules. I believe this should be addressed in our increasingly independent, non-party-affiliated Senate.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Galvez.
Senator Massicotte, you have the floor.
Hon. Paul J. Massicotte: As former chair and current member of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, I’m honoured to be with you today to share some of my experiences and observations.
[English]
As a committee, we are committed to promoting sustainable development and responsible resource development in Canada. We recognize the importance of balancing economic growth with environmental protection and we are dedicated to finding solutions that will benefit Canadians for generations to come.
In the past few years, the committee has taken on issues such as the transition to a low-carbon economy and environmental protection and natural resource management, to just name a few.
[Translation]
During my tenure as committee chair, one of our priorities was to ensure that all members were heard and that their needs were proactively addressed. This was especially so when it came to selecting the committee’s study topics, as we wanted to ensure that the work remained relevant and representative across all regions.
By opting for this approach, we were able to increase productivity within the committee and achieve better outcomes for Canadians, I believe. However, we still have some areas we can improve to increase productivity and better serve Canadians.
[English]
While the committee has always strived to maintain productivity and impartiality in our reports and recommendations, I have noticed that there are times when reports made not only by ENEV but other committees can take on a form of lobbying in the interests of a certain position. It is crucial we remain aware of this and ensure that our work always puts the interests of the Senate and Canadians at large first.
One of the most significant challenges we face as a committee is the scheduling of our meetings. As you are aware, the Senate sits on Tuesdays, and a committee cannot hold its meetings unless we are dealing with government business or if we pass a motion in the chamber, with proper justification. Unfortunately, this often leads to the cancellation of our scheduled meetings, which can be frustrating for both committee members and witnesses alike, if not outright disrespectful.
[Translation]
We also face a representation issue. Senators from Quebec are overrepresented, while senators from the East Coast are significantly underrepresented. I’m convinced that we must address this issue by finding a way to increase the participation of senators from these underrepresented regions.
[English]
Finally, when witnesses come to give us their testimony, it is often the witnesses residing closer to the National Capital Region who appear in person, while witnesses from more remote regions appear virtually. This can create a bias in the questions directed to witnesses, as the in-person witnesses might receive more attention than those appearing virtually. I believe we must ensure that all witnesses have an equal opportunity to share their perspectives and answer questions.
[Translation]
Thank you for your time and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you to both witnesses. You’ve raised some major issues, especially given the nature of this committee that deals with energy, climate change, the environment and issues of concern, such as lobbying. You listed all the issues that we will have to deal with as a committee.
[English]
Senator Marwah: Thank you, colleagues, for being with us this morning.
You know this well, but the name of the committee is the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. The two issues — and Senator Galvez, you alluded to one of them — is that issues related to environment go well beyond energy and natural resources.
The other implication is that the importance of the environment and climate change has risen substantially over the last two decades; 20 years ago, there might not have been much of an issue, but now, it is a whole different issue.
Given that, I would like your thoughts on whether we should separate the mandate to have a separate mandate on energy and resources — do not even call it “energy;” call it “natural resources,” because that covers everything — and perhaps create a new committee that focuses on the environment, climate change and all issues pertaining to those.
Should we separate the two?
Senator Galvez: Until we create a committee on climate change and one on energy, we shouldn’t take it out from the present committee, that is for sure. On the other hand, as you mentioned, climate change and the environment are topics for every committee; even Social Affairs should study them.
It is our decision whether we want to keep studying in silos and have a committee that only looks at the environment and climate change, knowing there are impacts on economy and natural resources because of the link with energy and critical metals that we will need to transition. So it is our decision.
We have to collaborate more among committees. In general, I won’t support something that will keep us with tunnel vision. We have to find a way to collaborate with other committees. Maybe we divide the studies, but in the end, it is bringing together the subjects.
Please, do not take climate from ENEV until you find another solution. Thank you.
Senator Marwah: Okay.
Senator Massicotte: For my two cents, I would be strongly against separating the issues. As you see with other committees, separating the issues creates a lot of problems. It is so easy to take a subject matter — it could be agriculture or climate change — and the real issue or real problem is how you reach that balance. How do you get to a point where Canadians will profit from it? Also, you have to resolve the issues, and if you do it in silos — it is like saying, “Don’t ever swear.” and someone says, “Okay, I’ll never swear,” but that doesn’t resolve anything, and sometimes I do swear.
I think you have to keep it together, otherwise you are not dealing with the real issues. The real issue is that most of the energy sector is a significant contributor to climate change. If you take those away, you take away the real issues: How do we get to the balance to best serve Canadians?
Senator Marwah: May I point out that the agriculture sector has a big impact on climate change. How do we handle that?
Senator Massicotte: That is an issue. It is a good example. It is a bit frustrating for us — at least I felt that with the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. You try to deal with the thorny issues, and you do not totally agree but you finally achieve a balance that I think best serves Canadians. Basically, it has obviously put an emphasis on climate change and reducing CO2. That is where we’re going.
We have a good report. Then, all of a sudden, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has a meeting and comes up with a recommendation saying that they should be exempted. The first is that they want to be exempted completely.
Canadians look at this. This is our famous, well-reputed committee work. We are supposed to be doing good work. You get a significant report saying that we have to manage this, and then you have a committee lobbying for a single cause to be excluded from the application.
Yet we gave a hard time to the federal government, because company wants to be exempted. There are all these import codes. Everyone wants to be. If you do that, what is the sense? It is ridiculed. It is such a negative image to us. People say, “What are you? Do you agree with Agriculture?” No, we don’t, but it is a significant report from Agriculture that they should be exempted.
I do not think that you can get there. Unfortunately, you have to resolve these big issues.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, I appreciate your candour.
I have several questions. I think we can all agree that we need to find a solution for committees that meet on Tuesday nights when the Senate is called to sit past 6 p.m. This is a very problematic situation.
I think we can all agree on the regional representation issue. In your opinion, do you have an adequate number of senators on your committee? Are there too many or too few?
With respect to the situation you just mentioned, you gave the example of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, when the Senate agrees to conduct a study upon request from a committee. In the process of accepting a request, wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a referral to or the participation of related committees? That could be part of the solution — I’m not saying it’s the only solution.
In the budget process, are the sections regarding your committee’s mandate referred to you? Would you like the sections to continue being referred to you?
Senator Galvez: The number of members has been raised since I became a senator. There are 12 of us now. That’s a good amount. It means we can have people from all regions.
I’m pleased to say that we now also have Indigenous representation. Up to now we didn’t have it. That’s also a very important factor.
It’s mostly the supply bills that get divided up between different committees. These bills are not referred directly to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. They are referred to the National Finance Committee, which then refers part of them to us. I have the privilege of serving on both those committees, so I can see the common thread between the two.
Since you brought this up, I’d like to add that as committees and as senators, we are not privy to discussions between leaders or those about support staff, because they are confidential. Actually, I don’t understand why they are confidential. This rule could also be reviewed because we’re affected by those decisions. They have an impact on us. However, we’re not involved in them and we don’t have the opportunity to voice our opinions on them.
The National Finance Committee decides that part of the bill must be studied by the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Since I’ve been in the Senate, we’ve studied parts of bills three times.
The Chair: The Senate decides that, actually.
Senator Galvez: The Senate does, yes.
Senator Massicotte: I won’t answer the question directly. Instead, I’d like to embark on a very important but complicated topic. A number of senators have asked whether the quality of our reports and the committees’ contribution are as valid and significant as they once were. I wonder about that and I’m not sure we’re all on the same page about it. I’m not sure we’re making as significant a contribution as we should be.
It starts with the selection of committee members. In our group, we almost choose out of love. We say that we’ll choose our friends and join the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Several Quebecers sit on the committee and we’re very involved. We make our choice known and the leaders try to respect it. Committee members are not strategically selected. The way members are selected doesn’t guarantee that the committee will be well balanced. We all have our opinions.
We all agree on climate change. However, we reach those conclusions quickly. How can we debate the issues? Why don’t our committees and those who sit on them act more strategically, by favouring members who have expertise to make the committee stronger, for example, and therefore making the right decisions on what’s good and what’s bad? Right now, friendships are mostly guiding decisions; we’re aiming to please.
England and Scotland decided that the Senate would appoint certain committees’ members. They hope that selecting them that way is not as partisan. However, that method has had a significant impact. The committee chairs in the House of Lords therefore play a more significant role. It’s well known that they are worthy of the public’s respect.
Over here, however, it’s a popularity contest. We decide who sits on the committee. Maybe we should ask the leaders and the steering committees to be more present and select members more strategically. At the same time, they are being so partisan that we can’t have much faith in them, because we will always end up in the same place.
In my opinion, we should look into this issue. We’re missing a great opportunity here. I won’t name them, but it seems to me that certain reports are not up to par. They quite simply are not what they should be.
Senator Ringuette: Last week, it was suggested to us that the selection committee be mandated to ensure regional representation and gender parity. Perhaps the third selection criterion should be the level of expertise in an area.
Senator Massicotte: That would help strike a balance.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: It’s a really good idea.
[English]
Senator Woo: I wonder if you could comment on a study that I was involved in when I was a member of the committee. I think that both of you were members as well. It was the transition to a low-carbon economy, which you may recall produced, I think, four interim reports on different sectors but failed to produce a final report. I was a party to that discussion.
I recall spending a lot of time working on the report, which was, I thought, quite good. But it never came to fruition. That would have been the capstone report for all of the work that was done previously.
I wonder if you can comment on how that came about, why that came about; is there a lesson to be learned? It seems to me that so much effort was put into this study and we were not able to generate a result.
Senator Galvez: Yes, it is a difficult question. I was disappointed too. In spite of the different opinions, we managed to produce all those reports.
If you recall the recommendations — we had the capstone as a part of it — it was approved paragraph by paragraph. It was completely approved, but it was not adopted. It missed the last piece.
So we have it. It is there. But it is not public.
Some people said it is due to the issue with a fair number of members and so, as my colleague explained, people can lobby, get friends, this and that. We are separated in two. And there is not an even number to come and split the vote. So what is this? Was that the simple solution, to have even numbers in the committees so that we can —
[Translation]
The Chair: Perhaps we should remember that having even numbers doesn’t play in our favour.
Senator Galvez: Exactly.
[English]
My feeling, more than frustrated, was sadness. Because we did a good job. It lasted more than a couple of years. We left it incomplete.
Senator Massicotte: We had agreed. All of the individual points were agreed to. The bottom line is it got emotional. There was some animosity.
The only conclusion I arrived at, relative to people that I spoke with over our committee, was that many people said, “Yes, this is good, but we did not deal with this, this, this, which we thought was essential.” It became conflictual. Then we lost all of the energy, momentum, to achieve and get consensus on the report. I was told that we would not achieve consensus because of what is missing, not what was there. As you know, there was a change of leadership at that point in time as well, which was pretty important.
Senator Batters: Thank you for being here.
Senator Galvez, in your opening remarks, you stated that you thought that steering committees should abide by proportionality of different Senate groups.
When your group, the Independent Senators Group, has approximately three times the number of senators as the smaller groups do, as is basically the case now. Are you saying that the ISG, on the steering committee, would have three senators and the opposition Conservatives, the CSG and PSG would each then only have one senator on a steering committee for a total steering committee membership of six senators?
Your committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, has 12 senators on the full committee and so to have a six-member steering committee seems totally unworkable.
Senator Galvez: I am not stating that this is what you should do. I am pointing out that this is an issue. It is up to your committee to decide how to solve this problem. But there is this issue.
In the steering committee, there is no proportionality that it seems to be one of the criteria and principles that have been respected since the ISG appeared in the Senate. I don’t know the best way to do it. I am saying it is difficult because it doesn’t represent the —
Senator Massicotte: If I could add something, I strongly believe that people who sit on the Executive Committee, or other committees, they bring their luggage or expertise. They should not be there to represent other committees, especially with the independence approach of our committees. Otherwise, if you are going to decide issues on a caucus basis, then why there?
It seems to me we have made all of this effort to give independence to those who wish to vote. Even in our caucus, we maintained the freedom to vote as we so wished at any point and time. Therefore, it would be against my principle anyway, where somebody comes to a meeting with a mandate to vote a certain way; that is contrary to the independence we sought.
Senator Batters: Senator Galvez, because you raised that — and you weren’t raising it as just an issue; you were saying there isn’t proportionality — in my example, would you say that on your committee, ISG should have three senators and the other groups one each in your ideal world?
Senator Galvez: No, not necessarily. I’m not saying that. Maybe. Maybe more of the decisions could be taken as the committee as a whole.
Senator Batters: You are free to do that as chair.
Senator Galvez: Yes and no. There is motion that we are trying to change in order to encourage more of this. It worked for a couple of committees in the last Parliament, and it didn’t work for any committee in this Parliament. Maybe the solution before changing the rules could be that we bring more of the decisions to the whole committee.
Senator Batters: Again, that is always your prerogative as chair.
You also said that your group, the Independent Senators Group, doesn’t have partisan affiliation ties. I believe — and I may have remembered this incorrectly — you said due to that, there can some major differences of opinions between the members of your group on a particular committee.
I’m wondering if your desire for a greater number of spots on a steering committee is due to those differences in your own group, because those types of differences are generally ironed out in a caucus or a group meeting and not with multiple points of view voiced by people in the same group at a steering committee meeting because, again, that could be unworkable.
Senator Galvez: Again, I’m not proposing that we change the composition. I’m raising a point about proportionality.
My proposition could be more to work with the motion 3 that we approved at the beginning of Parliament that says that steering will take care of calendars, administrative stuff. However, it will bring the bigger decisions to the whole committee about the next study, the witnesses we receive, the perspective and the lenses by which the study could be taken.
Senator Batters: How does your committee, Senator Galvez, handle the drafting of reports?
I have been a member for a couple of months, particular to this one study that we are dealing with right now with the climate change, oil and gas study. I am wondering how your committee handles the drafting of reports.
Does the steering committee do a fair bit of that drafting, along with the library analysts and the clerk? Is that how it goes? Then a more finalized version is presented to the full committee. Is that how it works?
Senator Galvez: I will tell you. I have experience with that. As a member of other committees, I remember when I first came to the Senate, it was the staff of the chair of the committee writing the report. That has changed, because now in Environment we push for the analyst to write the report. I have seen, in the past, moments when the reports were written by the staff of the senator.
Senator Batters: How it works now on your committee —
Senator Galvez: Now, it works that —
Senator Batters: — is that the library —
Senator Galvez: — the library drafts an outline.
Senator Batters: Then does steering look at a significant draft of it, works with that until it’s in a more final version and then take it to the full committee? How do you work it?
Senator Galvez: The first draft is already presented to the whole committee.
Senator Batters: So steering never —
Senator Galvez: We just finished one report. And so —
Senator Batters: — works on finalizing a draft at all?
Senator Galvez: Yes. If the whole committee gave the mandate to steering to finalize the report, sometimes it has to do with final recommendations, grammar, typos or translation issues; these are mostly the types of work that steering does once the report is finalized.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you both for being here this morning. It is always interesting to hear from chairs and past chairs about how committees should work. If only we had the magic solution for all of this.
Senator Massicotte, I was interested in your comment about all witnesses having equal opportunity to be questioned and to participate. In theory, that happens. You have some on the screen, some in person. The reality is exactly what you said.
When you have somebody right in front of you, you tend to ask them the question, or they are in the room and they tend to respond more quickly. You said some who live nearby are in person and those who are farther away are on the screen. Whose decision is it whether they are in person or on the screen? Is it the decision of the witness that you call or is it for other reasons?
Senator Massicotte: The quick answer is you obviously have a good prediction what is going to happen based on who you are calling. It’s the guest’s decision to come. They are given a choice all the time. You can present yourself physically or we can do it through video.
Senator Cordy: Unless we remove that option, then it will continue to be that way?
Senator Massicotte: There is no easy solution to that one.
Senator Cordy: Yes, thanks.
You both mentioned collaboration with other committees. The example you gave was about two committees in the Senate giving diametrically opposed opinions on the best way to reduce the climate impact.
Many years ago, before COVID, committees used to all get together in a room and talk about what their studies would be, which wouldn’t really solve the problem either because they are talking about the studies. But, clearly, they are not going to tell you what the decisions of the committee are going to be because they haven’t reached them. How do you think collaboration could take place?
We should be looking at things from different perspectives, clearly, more than the Energy Committee should be looking at climate change. How do we deal with that? It is a really good point that you raised. It’s not good for the Senate when we have competing recommendations.
Senator Massicotte: From my experience, when you decide to go into a subject matter, the committee is looking at that. You have got to be alert to the fact that there may be duplication, or somebody else may be looking at the same thing.
People should go and talk to the other committees’ members to say we are undertaking this study. Is it something you anticipate doing? Do you think we should do it together? Have a very frank discussion. Are we doing it together or separately? Avoid the duplication. Duplication looks awful.
Senator Cordy: I agree.
Senator Galvez, did you have any comment on that?
Senator Galvez: You just mentioned that, before COVID, committees used to get together. Maybe we should go back, at least maybe steering of committees, when —
Senator Cordy: It was steering, yes.
Senator Galvez: Yes. Maybe we should make it more official, more often, then discuss it so that we don’t overlap with reports, because it does look bad to the public.
[Translation]
The Chair: The interesting thing about this is that when two committees work, they can have two different perspectives; either a more environmentally focused perspective, an economic perspective or a social perspective. That’s very attractive.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here together today, representing similar committees with different styles. It is very interesting to listen to.
One of the things that was mentioned earlier and that came up last week was around regional representation. I do not want to flog it too much, but I have to say that yesterday was a Monday. We had and Security and National Defence meeting. We had the minister at the table with a lot of individuals who had given up a lot to be there. The score, I am going to call it 7-2. There were seven senators from Ontario and two from Quebec. I could not help but watch the minister and the wonder in that room saying, “This is regional representation?” That’s a Monday. Some of the things have come with a bit of a challenge with having committees on a Monday. It was a real example.
My question for you, or thoughts, is the concept of moving meetings around, moving committees around throughout a calendar week, perhaps over few-year terms — I know when you sit, but if it’s hindered — and if you see that as a fair and equitable thing to do.
Senator Galvez, you talked about mandate letters, which I really tried hard to match up with committees. I would like you to dig into that a little bit deeper on what it could help you be doing. Or, by not dealing with the mandate letters, is it getting in the way of what you’re doing?
Senator Galvez: Thank you for the question. I think mandate letters are important because that reflects what the people have elected; this party, these ideas, this platform. The mandate letter refers to that. That’s what Canadians want. We should be aware of that and somehow introduce them, percolate them to our committee’s studies.
With respect to the regions, it’s very interesting. In the six years that I have been in the Senate — and I am in this committee — today there is more variety. When I arrived, there were actually only two, three people from Quebec on this committee. Now we are moving into the other side.
But we have to look at the work of the committee as a film, and not as a picture. Don’t take the picture today and say, “Okay, today we are only Quebecois,” because it was not like that six years ago.
Maybe the different leaders of the different groups can recommend and see that representation is there for the number of people they have in each committee. It could be just a simple recommendation. It would be good to send people from different regions with different expertise to contribute better to the work of a given committee.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that. Senator Massicotte, in your experience, listening to the conversations and testimony, what is the one improvement or change that you think could help all committees?
Senator Massicotte: The composition of committees is very important. I would give a little more say or a little more power to the executive committee, or at least the superior or the person responsible for selection of each individual of a party or group. Now we simply do it by merely friendship, which is very bad. I would give it a little more authority. But I wouldn’t give it too much authority because they are apt to be partisan. They should be able to say, “If I look at the committee structure, this is weak. We should have somebody with greater strength and experience on this. Here are the issues coming up. Let’s make sure we can deal with the issue in the committee.” I would give more power to not only make it social, not only make it are we friends or not friends, but to try to be more strategic. I would ask the committee to at least give comments for the leadership of each committee to agree or disagree on those selections.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’d like to thank the two witnesses from this committee for enlightening us so we can move forward in our study of committees.
I’ve heard quite a bit in relation to topics discussed on a committee. That could be shared with another committee because when you’re discussing the same topic, you may come to two different conclusions.
Have any issues or studies been sent to your committee, but you feel they should have been sent to another committee? Has that ever happened?
Senator Galvez: Not in my time, no. All parts of those bills, especially budget bills, that were sent to our committee fit well with our committee.
Senator Mégie: Perfect. I will bring up another point about witnesses.
Witnesses are most often called by clerks or others, but have you noticed a certain linguistic representation among witnesses who appear before your committees? It can lead to a richer diversity of voices, but it can also bring certain perspectives such as regional or other representation. Linguistic representation can also enrich the committee’s perspective
Have you noticed if the selection of witnesses and testimony taps into linguistic representation?
Senator Massicotte: The steering committee spends a great deal of time selecting witnesses. With the help of the analysts, a lot of time is spent asking who has expertise and in what area. We make sure we have a balance of views, opinions and abilities among witnesses. Yes, we’re somewhat concerned about linguistic representation, but perhaps not as much as you would hope; it’s not the priority compared to the witnesses’ content, skills and experience, which are more important factors.
[English]
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much for being here and for your insights. Senator Massicotte, I just wanted to go back to comments you made on the Tuesday sittings. I don’t expect them today, but I wonder if you can provide any examples to this committee where people expressed their displeasure at coming here and then being told they are not sitting. I am wondering what the impact is, especially since Tuesday sittings are usually last minute. I wonder if that might be helpful for the committee.
Senator Massicotte: I have had witnesses where we had to tell them last minute, “Sorry, we just decided this or that.” You can tell there is a frustration. I can appreciate frustration. These are highly recognized people who have something to contribute, who have significant knowledge. That’s why they are witnesses. That’s why you want to speak to them. At the very last minute, we say, “Sorry, we have to reschedule.”
It just irks me. It’s a lack of respect. We say the committees are important to us. We certainly don’t treat it that way when you decide at the last minute that you’re going to bounce this person off.
The difficult part is what the solution is. That’s the more difficult part. That’s where the committee exists. Maybe we should have four o’clock on another day as well, or be a bit more flexible, or highly more flexible. How do you get exceptions?
The committee is available within a couple of buildings. If there is a special vote, they can certainly — we did a lot of that, we excused ourselves saying we would be back in 10 or 15 minutes. Now it’s a no-no. If you ask for an exception, unless you are about to die, you’re not going to get an exception.
Senator Hartling: That’s where I was going. Perhaps it’s the inflexibility that is causing the problem, not the actual sitting.
Senator Massicotte: This is probably the real solution.
Senator Hartling: My second question is around the example you gave of being in a competing outcome of the Agriculture Committee versus the Energy and Environment Committee, which I suspect reflects views of some Canadian somewhere, and that’s exactly what it is at the end of the day. Is there an opportunity — or should committee chairs take the opportunity when they speak to the report in the chamber — to speak about the competing recommendations? I am wondering if that then spawns the Senate to be more reflective in terms of putting those two issues together and sort of — for lack of a better word — wrestle them to the ground in terms of outcome.
Senator Massicotte: I appreciate that when people read a report, the reason they even read it is that they think we have the credibility and experience to add something to the subject matter. We are best apt to find the balance. Everybody agrees that it’s somebody’s opinion. It may be different than yours. People reading the report, they want to say, “Here are 12 people who spent a lot of time, they had a lot of witnesses. We heard the witnesses, but what do the 12 senators come up with?”
To simply say there is a difference of opinions, that’s not good enough. I think you’re shaming the branding of our Senate. You are shaming the value and the credibility of our senators there. I think people want to hear from them, not to simply say may be a conflict. That means those committees should go deep enough, so enough time to develop an opinion that is complete and therefore credible to share with others. You can’t just say, “Well there may be another competing report.” If that’s the case, you’re saying that your opinions are not valued.
Senator Hartling: Is there an opportunity where the two committees could get together and share —
Senator Massicotte: Nothing wrong with that. I know it has been suggested but rarely put in place.
Senator Hartling: Absolutely.
Senator Massicotte: Very rarely.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: We’re talking a lot about opinions. To do the work conscientiously and thoroughly in committees, we should be relying on data, information that comes from reliable sources, not just someone’s opinion. If we did that, we would already fix a lot of things.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Senator Massicotte, you’re one of the longest-serving senators now. You’ve been here for quite a while. You have a lot of experience.
I want your opinion on the number of committees we have and the full committees we have, as opposed to the subcommittees. I have thought for a long time that we should completely review our committee system. These committees have been around for decades, and I’m just wondering what your opinion is on the structure of the committees and the numbers we have. I believe some committees take up a lot of time that might be better off being in subcommittees.
I’m curious about your opinion on that. What do you think?
Senator Massicotte: Well, this issue has been discussed by the Senate. Every couple of years, if you look in the reports, there are even surveys. It has been dealt with frequently.
I would give you a frank answer and say that all those issues of logistics or semantics are important, but they could be easily resolved.
People disagree, and that’s okay, but I think if you had several people look into finding a solution, I think they could find a reasonable solution. The problem is that then it gets stuck on the partisan side, because if it’s not my answer and the other guy’s answer, it goes nowhere.
I don’t think the issue is too complicated. The issue is showing openness and having a frank issue and being open to somebody else’s opinion, as opposed to always our own.
Senator MacDonald: Are there any committees that don’t exist that should exist? Is there something we should be looking at in terms of a committee that we don’t have presently?
Senator Massicotte: We should, but I think we have dealt for so many hours on this issue, because you get stuck someplace, and if you just had a frank, open and non-partisan discussion about it, you could find the reasonable balance. It’s not perfect. You’re not going to get the perfect answer — and don’t even try to get there — but I think you could achieve so much; it’s a question of attitude.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: I sat on the Special Committee on the Arctic. Precisely because of everything that’s happening with respect to first nations, the Inuit, the Métis, climate change and changes in the Arctic, we should resume that committee’s work, even if it remains on a temporary basis.
The Chair: We will now move quickly into a second round of questions.
Senator Ringuette: I’d like to quickly share my opinion. I agree with you in terms of regional representation on the committee, and not only in terms of the makeup of committee membership, but also the testimony.
For example, the Banking and Commerce Committee spends 95% of its time hearing witnesses from Toronto or Western Canada. When do we get people from Atlantic Canada? When it’s experts.
That was a passing comment. Here’s my question: I’m one who advocates for the whole committee being effective, including all staff involved in carrying out the committee’s work. Instead of having two two-hour meetings a week, committees could sit once a week for three hours. Could you tell us how you feel about that?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: We’re talking about people from the regions. One issue we’ve encountered in our committee has to do with Indigenous people; we don’t often hear from Indigenous witnesses. In addition, it’s complicated because there are a number of chiefs. It might be helpful to clean that up a bit with the definition of who is available. We raised the issue of Indigenous representation in our most recent report, which I hope will be released very soon. It would be great if we could add that.
Senator Ringuette: How do you feel about three-hour committee meetings?
Senator Massicotte: I don’t know.
The Chair: We’ll think about it. We have a yes on one side, and I’m not sure about the other side.
Senator Ringuette: There’s a question mark on the other side.
[English]
Senator Woo: We keep coming back to the problem of unbalanced committees, regional, gender and so on and so forth. We heard it today, and we have heard it in previous testimony.
Would you support assignment to committees, not on the basis of the groups you belong to but for the Senate as a whole so that we can, as a body, attempt to create some regional and gender and other kinds of balance?
The corollary to that kind of structure is that we wouldn’t have the portability of seats problem, which Senator Bellemare and I have an ongoing discussion on; we would solve that problem. The other corollary, I think, is that we would then be able to elect chairs by the committee members themselves, rather than allocating them through some kind of formula for the different groups.
It would be more democratic, if I could put it that way.
Senator Massicotte: I would really like that. As I mentioned earlier, in England and Scotland, they have done that, and it has been a great success for the profile and credibility of that person, given that he got elected by all the members in the Senate, not only a small group. It went a long way.
The only difficulty is whether we can trust the leadership of each group to do so based upon merit and not based on some partisan attempt to control the agenda.
Senator Woo: No, because people would be appointed —
Senator Massicotte: They will get voted in by the group.
Senator Woo: Yes, exactly.
Senator Massicotte: But will the groups get together and say, “You have got to vote for this person, because if you’ve got this person, we will have 11 or 15 of us, and then we will be able to control that?”
Senator Woo: Oh, I see — collusion. There is never any collusion in the Senate.
Senator Massicotte: Nothing to do with merit.
Senator Galvez: It’s like a little Pandora’s box, and if we open it, then there are a lot of worms that can come out.
Senator Cordy: Maybe not.
Senator Massicotte: Worms are not bad. It’s the snakes you have got to be careful with.
Senator Batters: Senator Massicotte, in one of your earlier answers, you mentioned how you thought that senators were sometimes selected for committee spots by friendship or social reasons, rather than by merit or experience with the subject matter.
I was surprised by this comment, and I wouldn’t say that that’s been the case. It’s not my experience in our caucus. It made me wonder how committee spots are chosen for senators in your group.
Senator Massicotte: My group is basically that you get a polling done showing our interests, and it gets totally dominated by that. In other words, if we have seven slots available, and six or seven people show interest, all six or seven will be members of that committee.
Senator Batters: What if there are more than six or seven?
Senator Massicotte: Then we ask the leadership to get involved. The leadership will try to punt the issue, and then it goes back to those parties — there is some negotiation or pulling of straws.
Senator Batters: Oh, you just pick names out of a hat or something like that?
Senator Massicotte: Post that, yes.
Senator Batters: I’m sorry?
Senator Massicotte: The answer is no. First, you try to satisfy those who wish to be there. It is totally based upon the wish to be there. If there is a surplus of demand relative to supply, then there is another mechanism that they try to get there on a friendship basis.
Senator Batters: On a friendship basis? Interesting. Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Can I add just a little bit?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Galvez: The actual process is that you present your first choice, your second choice and your third choice. The facilitators are conscious and they promise that your first and your second choice most of the time will be accorded, agreed upon.
It’s only at the level of your third choice and fourth choice where there is a problem. That is the way it’s done.
Senator Batters: I will let Senator Massicotte’s little smile there speak for itself.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for participating. It was fascinating. You’ve raised some major issues. We’ll come back to them and certainly with potential suggestions in an iterative process that we will be going through. We’ll take a few minutes to switch to the next panel.
For part two, we’ll be hearing from members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We welcome Senator Ataullahjan, the current chair of the committee, Senator Hartley, former deputy chair of the committee, and Senator Bernard, former chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We have three individuals who have been very involved in the committee. We’ll start with Senator Ataullahjan.
[English]
Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to be here as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, which I will refer to by its acronym, RIDR. I have been the committee’s chair since November 2020, and today I hope to offer an overview of RIDR’s recent work, highlight the importance of our studies and mention a few aspects that could be improved.
Under the Forty-fourth Parliament, RIDR has studied two private bills, Bill S-211, an Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff; and Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). The committee also completed a study on forced and coerced sterilization of persons in Canada, a spot study on restrictions on humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and our study on Islamophobia is coming to an end and we hope to table our report in July.
The Islamophobia study has been a sizeable undertaking, as it has been ongoing since June 2022, and has involved two successful fact-finding missions and public hearings in Quebec City, Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton. Unfortunately, due to lack of funding, we were unable to visit Eastern Canada, but we were able to speak with key witnesses virtually. But in the context of the forced and coerced sterilization study, we experienced important hurdles in hearing from witnesses who live rurally and do not have an internet connection at home.
It is important to note that RIDR deals with sensitive issues that affect Canadians in most intimate ways. Human rights violations affect a person’s sense of self-worth, which can have devastating consequences on their mental and physical health. Hence, RIDR’s work is essential in uncovering root causes of human rights issues in Canada, and our findings have proven to be of public interest. Our reports attract considerable attention, as our more recent prison study report was downloaded over 2,000 times, and our second forced sterilization study nearly 1,000 times.
Our committee work also attracts a lot of interest from the news media. We received an overwhelming number of interview requests during the fact-finding missions, and the article “Anti‑Muslim Hate: Senators meet with Muslim communities as attacks rise” is the most viewed news article on the Senate website, only second to Bill C-11.
As RIDR doesn’t deal with many government bills, the committee sometimes gets dismissed as being less important. However, our spot study on Afghanistan led to very real legislation in the House, and the forced sterilization studies rose awareness of this issue across the country. Hence, we may not deal with many bills, but our topics are cutting-edge.
The lack of government bills also provides the committee with a greater flexibility and reactivity to current events. While some may find that we encroach on other committees’ mandates, we see it as collaborative work. RIDR focuses on Canadian human rights issues and international rights issues. In the context of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, we were dealing with a time‑sensitive issue affecting Canadian organizations, and the committee was able to tackle the issue quickly.
Some difficulties we have faced as a committee mainly have to do with our meeting time and quorum. RIDR has a meeting timeslot on Mondays between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. This is generally when many senators travel to Ottawa for Senate sittings, and some of our meetings have been delayed because of traffic or delayed flights. We have had trouble reaching quorum, including during our fact-finding missions.
I would also like to add that although the committee has adopted trauma-informed practices in the past, our work can be very triggering for our witnesses. Additional support, such as access to a social worker or counsellor, could put many of our witnesses at ease and possibly encourage more Canadians to come forward.
On that note, I look forward to answering your questions.
Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: Thank you for the invitation to be here. I did not prepare an opening statement, but I do have a few observations that I would like to share with the committee.
I thank our current chair for providing some really good highlights of the work of the committee, so there is no need for me to repeat those. I am certainly happy to respond to your questions.
There are a couple of comments I would like to make to your committee. First of all, I would say that human rights matters cut across many other issues that are studied by committees here in the Senate. In fact, one could argue that all of our work could be viewed from a human rights perspective. If we bring a human rights and a social justice lens to all of our studies, then you could say the Human Rights Committee could essentially be a part of every committee.
There is a lot of overlap. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of discussion amongst committees. I heard Senator Cordy say earlier that committees used to come together to talk about what they would be studying. I would say that predates my time here in the Senate, because I have never been invited to such an event. I think it would be welcomed and there could be more conversation and collaboration between committees.
One other comment I would make is that Human Rights studies issues of national interest and also issues of international interest. Clearly, there are too many issues and not enough time. There are often some tensions around what topics should have priority. As Senator Massicotte said earlier, open dialogue and communication are really important.
The last observation I would make is around committee membership. We are not a 12-member committee; we are an 8‑member committee, so we are a smaller committee. One of the things that I have observed in my short six years that I have been here is that the committee is very gendered and very racialized. That speaks to members of our chamber who have a particular interest in human rights issues. As I said earlier, human rights is everyone’s business. Thank you.
Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. It was a bit overwhelming to be the one on this side of the table. It is much better when you are sitting over there. It is an opportunity and also good learning to see what the witnesses must feel like to try to give a short presentation on the topic that they are asked to do.
First of all, it has been my great pleasure to serve on RIDR, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, since 2016. I chose this committee because of my interest in human rights both nationally and internationally. The committee has offered me a window to learn about several complex human rights issues covering a gamut of topics including, but not limited to — as Senator Ataullahjan said — the large-scale of human rights of persons sentenced to federal institutions, forced sterilization of Indigenous and other marginalized women particularly in Canada. We also explored international issues relevant to Myanmar and Afghanistan. This extensive study on Islamophobia has been very interesting for us to learn about and I hope for all Canadians.
I have definitely learned a great deal around topics related to human rights. In addition, we have studied several bills including government and non-governmental bills as well.
Today I would like to focus a little more on logistics — I am a logistics person — in the process of the committee. I would like to note that in my view, each committee’s functions are based on the strength and style of the leadership of the chair and deputy chair, and its ability to work with the committee members and all team members effectively. If communication is not functioning, the committee will be less productive. Our process needs to be established on how to deal with things like the choices of studies, the length of the studies, witnesses and ensuring fairness of the process.
In 2019, my role as one of the deputy chairs began. I worked with Senator Bernard, who was the chair at that time, and another deputy chair. However, when the next two negotiations happened when Senator Ataullahjan came in, there was only going to be one deputy chair along with the chair. That meant two people on steering. However, they asked if someone would volunteer to be on steering to make the three, so I volunteered, which has been my pleasure. It is a non-paid position.
I am noting that because for the future, it could be that some people might not want to do that because there is a lot of responsibility in that position in terms of meetings. With our committee, we have had a lot of meetings and a lot of things to discuss. I want to put that on the record.
I understand that some committees still have the two paid deputy chairs, but ours, however, does not. To your point, Senator Bernard, sometimes Human Rights looks like a soft subject, social work and those kinds of things that are not really that important, but they intersect with so many various issues on all of our committees. It is important to note that.
We also talked about the committee timing. We used to meet on Wednesdays from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., which was really good because people were already here. Our committee can meet on Monday from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. It makes it more difficult, especially with the flights being less available. I think that affects regional representation. If you are trying to get here from B.C., Yukon or somewhere else, it is very difficult. I have a less difficult time to get here, but I know even you have trouble to get there. It makes it hard to get replacements on our committee and to actually attract long-standing members because of that Monday timing.
In terms of the room, I want to mention that our room is very cold. We are sometimes shivering there at night because we have to put our wraps on. The lights are also sometimes a little bit difficult.
The other issue that I have noticed is that the translation booths are not as soundproof as they could be. Sometimes it is difficult to hear our witnesses, especially when they are coming in on video. However, these are technical and functional issues. Apparently, we asked for the heat to be turned up and they said that they had to call Toronto. It was a little bit of a joke, “Oh, to get the heat up we have to call Toronto and they are not there right now.” We duly note that we will bring extra clothing for our committee. I do want to note that things have to function logistically to make our committees effective.
I want to commend our excellent staff, the clerks, the analysts, the pages, the translators, very much appreciated. What a great team. That does make our committee function really well.
In terms of other questions to address, I don’t believe we have a mechanism to measure the impact of our reports, and I sincerely believe that that would be helpful. We talked about the numbers of people reading and things like that, but how do we actually know how effective it is? Maybe that would be something to look at.
Another concern relates to the government responses to our studies. For example, our prison study that requested a response was tabled two years ago. Of course, with all of the things that happened, we haven’t had a response. We are going to table it again to make a motion to bring it back, but perhaps there needs to be a mechanism for this to be more efficient.
In terms of witnesses, I feel for some of them knowing the difficulty to sit in this seat, but I also sometimes feel that they are rushed. It might be helpful to learn a little bit more about how we can deal with that, especially on the videos. We have had some technical issues, so that makes it more difficult for those witnesses, so it is about being mindful of our witnesses and how they have prepared a lot to be here. It takes a lot. How do we best deal with that?
I would also like to note that it would be good for committees to find a mechanism to share the studies more broadly between committees — as you discussed earlier — but also ways in which we can talk about it more generally. What are you studying? How does that overlap? How is that relevant?
Finally, on a positive note, I am very proud of our committee work and working with my chair and deputy chair. Our recent spot study on Afghanistan led to a government response to developing Bill C-41, and that came pretty quickly. We did the study in December and the bill is coming now. We will be looking at that. That gives me some hope, and I am glad to see that we were able to push that forward.
Thank you again for this opportunity to reflect more deeply on our committee work and for your time and your expertise in studying this very important topic. Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: I will start out with Senator Ataullahjan. In our last Rules Committee meeting, we had Foreign Affairs Committee representatives in front of us. Senator Woo asked those senators whether they thought that matters of international human rights should be studied at the Foreign Affairs Committee rather than at the Human Rights Committee. I don’t think your committee mandate limits your work to Canada. I am wondering what your reaction is to that.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for that very important question. The Human Rights Committee started as a subcommittee of Foreign Affairs. That was before my time. I have been on this committee since 2010, ever since I was appointed. Because we get very few government bills, the committee is a master of its own fate. As with the spot study on Afghanistan, we decide. This is something we need to look at. We have another study coming up where we decided to put everything aside and deal with that issue.
It is not as though we are trying to encroach upon the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade or any other committee. They sometimes have bills, and we know that you have to deal with the bills before you. So we are very happy to work in collaboration with any committee.
I am a bit surprised that we will be presumed to be encroaching upon another committee’s work. No, it is an issue for Human Rights. Sometimes, it is time-sensitive, and we need to deal with it right away. It is possible for us to do that.
We are the Human Rights Committee and have done international studies, like a visit I made to the garment factory building that collapsed. The anniversary was yesterday. Over 1,000 people died. We looked at safety abroad for the garment workers, because we found that there were many Canadian brands that did have garments being produced in that factory. There was our study on Myanmar.
So we do international work and national issues that deal with Canadian human rights.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Ataullahjan, when Senator Hartling indicated that your committee still has not received a response from the federal government about your prison study that was completed two years ago, that is totally unacceptable.
Senator Ataullahjan, as chair, what is your committee doing to try to receive a response from government about that? Maybe even have it discussed at this particular committee and have it drawn out that this has happened, I would hope, might get them to respond to those serious issues.
Senator Ataullahjan: We are thinking of tabling a motion asking for a government response. It was a very important study. It took almost four years, and we travelled throughout Canada. There was so much interest; I spoke about how it has been downloaded so many times.
I am trying to be polite here, so I will say that I was very surprised that we did not get a government response, considering the amount of time and money we spent. All of the senators all made a point of being there. We had people who opened their hearts out to us. They spoke about their difficulties and how they felt there were certain human rights abuses. And this government chose not to respond to us.
Senator Batters: I want to make a brief comment. Senator Hartling was talking about a previous time where this committee used to meet on Wednesdays between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. One downside to that is that it would be partly at the time that our Conservative National Caucus meets, because we meet on Wednesdays until noon or sometimes a little bit later. It is sometimes earlier, but we are usually not finished by 11:30 in the morning. That would have an impact. I don’t know what other groups do, if they are similarly impacted. Mondays can be a challenging slot, but with limited times, there are reasons that other times might not work well.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Batters, in response to that, it was something I had to negotiate. We had senators coming from B.C. and from other provinces who would sometimes have to come the night before to be able to attend the Monday committee meeting. As a committee, we wondered if there was a different time we can meet where we could have all of the senators on that committee come and be present.
It was agreed. The question, of course, was that it was lunchtime. “Do you mind missing lunch?” For me, it was missing the end of the caucus. In fairness of having all of the committee members there, we decided that we would meet on Wednesday.
I know there is an interest to go back to Wednesday, but because of COVID and the restrictions, we are not able to because we do not have all of the facilities in place.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Marwah: Thank you, colleagues, for being here today.
Senator Ataullahjan, regarding the point you made that you were encroaching on Foreign Affairs, I don’t think that was the point that was made. If I remember correctly, the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade said that “international human rights issues were inextricably linked to our foreign policy, and hence it was closer that they were aligned,” and that consideration was to be given to moving international foreign affair issues that you deal with to AEFA.
That was the context; it was not that you were encroaching on them, but it was just that he felt that there was a close link on those two issues.
If that were to transpire and we were to be left with domestic human rights issues, which can be divided into Indigenous and non-Indigenous — and there are a number of non-Indigenous human rights abuses; you just studied one of them — would that be better, then, broken up between APPA, SOCI and some other committees where they are more closely aligned?
Senator Ataullahjan: In my personal opinion, we are the Human Rights Committee and we deal with human rights issues. I was not here last week. I am just going by what I heard.
As I said, Social Affairs has so many bills they are dealing with, as does AEFA sometimes. It is easier for the Human Rights Committee to deal with and study something.
I do not have an issue; if the Foreign Affairs Committee feels that it is more competent to deal with a certain human rights issue, they can do that. But we are the Human Rights Committee. We have dealt very successfully with international human rights issues and domestic human rights issues.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for the question. It is a good question. As we study these issues, we ought to look at the best way to move forward. I read in some documentation that there are some ways to do joint studies or things like that. There are definitely enough human rights issues in our country to look at. We could be here forever.
So I do not have a problem with that. I think we do a good job with what we do, but maybe some things could go that way. That would be something to certainly have a look at to see whether they best fit with Foreign Affairs or this committee.
I do not have a problem with that; I just think it needs to be looked at thoroughly to find the best way or maybe joining the committee. That is an example of knowing what is going on in other committees. We had an instance last week when we were looking at new studies, and one senator proposed an idea. It was a great idea, and then Senator Omidvar said that they’re studying that in Social Affairs. She did not know that.
We need to have more of those conversations and communications on what is going on. Thank you.
Senator Bernard: That is exactly the point I was going to make. I wanted to make an argument about committees actually talking to one another about the topics that they want to study in any given Parliament or in any given year.
Senator Boniface: Thank you to all of you for being here.
My first question follows on from the domestic and international elements. I sit on Foreign Affairs as well. I look at the Afghan study. It was a great opportunity and a great piece of work, ultimately.
In your historical context, Senator Ataullahjan — I think you have been there the longest — what would be your balance between domestic studies and international ones?
Senator Ataullahjan: It has been many years — I could not give you an exact number — but we did a study on Myanmar, on the Rana Plaza building collapse. On Afghanistan, we have done a few studies. One was on women’s engagement in Afghanistan in 2011.
I find that, in terms of the work that some Senate committees do, we are way ahead of the curve, such as with the study on Afghanistan, women’s engagement in Afghanistan and what happens to the rights and the gains that they made. Déjà vu now — we are talking about that subject very much again now, 12 years later.
I am just trying to remember; I could get the list to you.
Senator Boniface: It might be helpful, because then we would know the percentage of the work we are talking about.
Senator Ataullahjan: Also, our prison study was four years long, because we were travelling all over Canada and trying to do the best that we could.
Some studies are very long. We decide beforehand if we are going to do a short study, medium study or a long study. Everything that we do is through consensus; all of the senators are involved in that decision.
Our committee should consist of nine members, but it is currently only eight. It is mostly women. We were lucky to have Senator Arnot join us.
Senator Boniface: That is an observation we should be making. It feels a little bit like “pink job/blue job” from my perspective. There is really important work being done on the Human Rights Committee. Having chaired a committee that met on Mondays at 2 p.m., I know the difficulty for people travelling, particularly given the current environment where the flights are not as available, as Senator Hartling mentioned. I think it’s a factor when the leaders reconvene at some point down the road and it needs to be taken into consideration.
Or maybe we start switching off which committees rotate Mondays as well, because I know National Defence and Official Languages have sat Mondays since I came here almost seven years ago.
On the functioning of the committees, it seems to me if you have three people sitting as a steering committee, it seems there is an inequity that they are not all being dealt with the same way in terms of compensation. Is that something you would recommend that this committee rethink in the future in terms of recommendations?
Senator Ataullahjan: In what way? We have all the groups represented now.
Senator Boniface: It’s not representation. You have a chair and a deputy chair who are compensated and another deputy chair who is not. It doesn’t matter who they are or where they come from.
Senator Ataullahjan: Definitely, I agree. It’s done for the other committees, so I don’t know why it is not for the Human Rights Committee.
Senator Bernard: I think it speaks volumes to the way the work is viewed. That’s the point I was trying to make earlier in terms of who is on the committee, who is choosing to be on this committee. I don’t recall my time here a lot of fight for position on this particular committee. The fact that we have one member of steering not being paid and this is as a Senate Human Rights Committee. This is human rights issue. Let’s deal with it.
Senator Boniface: That was my point.
Senator Cordy: That was direct, Senator Bernard, but appropriate. You’re absolutely right. I think that’s sort of a question that comes to mind when you spoke about the committee membership, eight members and it’s very gendered. I was a member of the committee. I loved working on that committee, I have to tell you, because you’re dealing with issues that are so real for people. I was part of the prison study and I had never been in a prison before, so it was certainly enlightening for me.
The comments that were made were affecting each and every one of those individuals personally and it was very heart‑wrenching to hear it. I know it’s very gendered, but we have three very strong, capable women sitting in front of our committee this morning. So thank you very much.
But is there a way to change that? I mean, it’s sort of like the horns of a dilemma. You want people who are passionate and interested so the people who apply — fortunately or unfortunately — tend to be very gendered, very racialized but they want to be on the committee. It’s not like there is an extra spot and we have to fill it. There are more people who would want to be on this committee than there are spaces. How do we work with that, make the committee bigger?
Senator Hartling: I think that the timing, when we meet, is a problem, for sure. Bless Senator Arnot. He is really committed and he has been a great new member for us. That’s difficult for him.
If we had a different time, we would be able to recruit some different people and talk it up a bit. It’s so important. Some people didn’t give a positive endorsement to the prison study. When you look at the prison study, with all the intersections of what we saw in prison with the mental health, with Indigenous peoples with racialized people, with all the issues, PTSD, all the things we talk about in bills brought forward, we could recruit more people with some ideas around that. It’s a great committee to get involved with, because it affects so many issues; like I said, all issues are human rights issues, but the timing, the day is certainly a problem to get working.
Senator Cordy: That’s a really good point.
Senator Bernard: I agree that people on the committee are there because they want to be there, and they are there because they have expertise in this area. But if we broadened our scope, in terms of bringing that human rights lens to all of it, the work would be seen differently.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Cordy, you briefly spoke about the fact that in this committee, people open up their hearts to us, we get affected. As you saw during the prison study, some of us were having difficulties.
I remember when we were doing the resettlement of the Syrian refugees and we heard certain testimony in camera, I had problems sleeping and I turned to Senator Hubley on that committee. I said, “Senator I’m not sleeping well.” She said neither was she, because in this committee we hear some of the most difficult testimony.
Senator Cordy: The fact that you haven’t gotten a government response to the prison study is very troubling. We heard last week, too, the need for committees to very effectively use responses to a government response to communicate the whole issue of the prison system and our prisoners, or whatever it happens to be, so that you can communicate it again throughout the country; everywhere that we went on the prison study, there were media interviewing members of the committee and travelling with us.
First of all, there should be a response, but when you get it — and certainly hope you do — and when you bring it to the Senate that we have a discussion about that, will you use that again to press the message across the country?
Senator Bernard: I would say absolutely, yes.
Just a point of clarification. There was a very short window between the time that the report was tabled and then there was an election called. We have been delayed following up. So there are a number of factors that led to the non-government response.
Having it re-tabled and requesting that response — and then we will certainly follow up because people across the country are waiting to hear from us. We not only heard from prisoners. We also heard from staff, many racialized staff who talked about their experiences of racism within the prison system. We are hearing some similar kinds of concerns being raised by other departments within government. These are big issues that cut across a number of jurisdictions.
Senator Cordy: Racism and sexism, if I recall correctly.
Senator Bernard: Yes.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for clarifying that. It is not all on the government. There are other factors that happened. The entire committee agreed wholeheartedly two weeks ago that we would definitely put forward a new motion; it is already tabled, so it’s a new motion to get the response. We all agree on that, so I think that should be forthcoming. That motion will come to the Senate pretty soon, I believe. Then it will give us some more clout to it. It will be heard again and people will ask questions, so I hope that will come soon.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator, if all goes well — and we are sort of in a time crunch right now — I’m hoping that we table it sometime this week. We do give the government 150 days to respond. Sometimes I feel that’s quite long, if we have elections, and everything kind of just falls off the table.
Senator Woo: I want to go back to the domestic and international issue. Can you refresh my memory about the recent studies, the Myanmar, the Rohingya, the Rana collapse and the spot study. Were they done under a general order of reference or did you have a specific order of reference from the Senate?
Senator Ataullahjan: Mostly we do things under a general order of reference. It’s easier because it helps us to deal — sometimes going into the Senate and asking for permission, all you need is to have one senator, you know? We try and do it under the general.
Senator Woo: That helps clarify that, first of all, your general order of reference does very explicitly include international human rights. That’s helpful for us to understand. But if I could, I would just suggest that going through the Senate has one merit in helping the rest of us in the Senate think about this important study. Let’s say you raised the Rana Plaza factory collapse issue, and everybody feels the Senate should be studying this, then there should be a conversation about whether it should go to Foreign Affairs or Human Rights? This is not about a competition; it’s about who has bandwidth, right? It’s about whether this issue has diplomatic or trade issues that are implicated.
I agree that it can also be blocked. That is the risk. But at least then we can have that cross-Senate discussion on where to best send a worthy study in the event that everybody agrees. Perhaps you have a comment on that.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you. I agree. I talk about having collaborative work, but again we go back to the fact that if you ask me what any committee in the Senate is studying — except the committees that I’m on — I won’t be able to tell you. Again, there is the need that we find out what we are studying.
You can also do part studies. You can look at one aspect, Foreign Affairs can look at one aspect, and we can look at another aspect.
The Rana collapse study was supposed to be a one-day study. But when the Senate heard some of the testimony, there was so much interest that we had to do a follow-up.
In fact, in our committee, we vote on the studies we will do. When we did the prison study, the second study we were supposed to do was to go back to the rights of garment workers because we were hearing of abuses happening in Myanmar, Vietnam, India and Pakistan. That was a study that we thought we could do more broadly and internationally. Of course, because of elections and things, we didn’t go back to that.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you often travel abroad? You study external affairs. You have permission to do that under your general mandate.
[English]
Do you travel a lot to other countries on the subject of international studies?
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator, you’ll be surprised to hear that I have been on this committee since 2010, and the only times we travelled were for the prison study, which was in Canada, and last year for Islamophobia. There is a myth that the Senate Human Rights Committee travels. No, we haven’t. We used to, before my time. There used to be a yearly trip. They would meet with the Human Rights Commission in Geneva and they would go to the UN in New York. All those trips were put on hold. I have been on the committee since 2012, and we have done two trips. That’s all I can remember.
The Chair: When you do an international study, how do you gather the facts or findings? Is it through the people who come to the committee?
Senator Ataullahjan: We were using links before Zoom became popular. We were listening to our witnesses online. That’s how we were doing it.
We went before CIBA to get some money and we were kind of dismissed. This is long before most of the senators present here were in the Senate. I remember somebody said, “This small committee, what can it do?” That was very offensive.
We haven’t travelled much. We would like to. We would like to go back to the work we were doing and meeting with the Human Rights Commission, but we haven’t planned it. Looking at how we have become with budgets and allocation of funds, we know it’s hard. We try to manage in whatever way we can.
Senator Bernard: With the Senate prisoners’ rights study, we did apply to CIBA to do two international trips as part of that work. We wanted to look at best practices. We were denied the funding to do international travel as part of that work.
Senator Hartling: I think it speaks to another issue in the Senate: the whole thing about trips, how they are decided and who gets to go. There are a lot of questions there. Our committee hasn’t even been on the radar. It might be something to make note of — that issue occurs in this committee and possibly others — and to look at how that is decided.
Senator Ataullahjan: To speak to the importance of travel, as senators, most of us know that it’s not a junket. You go, you have your meetings and then you literally get onto the next flight to go to another spot.
For the study on Islamophobia, we went into the mosques. The congregation had heard that we were coming. People came out to meet us and tell us their stories and experiences. It was the same with the prison study. Sometimes we were taken aside by people and they told us their stories.
That does not happen when you invite one person to come and speak to you. It’s a face you are seeing on the computer. You don’t get the interaction with Canadians. We saw that in the mosques. So many people came there to talk to us and to hear about the work we were doing. Even now when I go, there is interest. They say, “When can we get the study?” There is something to be said about being on the ground and meeting people.
Senator Cordy: On that note, you’re absolutely right. When we did the prison study, our intent was not to be looking at the human rights of the staff and prisoners. However, when we visited the prisons, we were approached by staff who told us their stories of sexism and racism within the system.
I think sometimes it’s easy to say, “Well, a trip is going to cost X number of dollars; it’s not worth it.” In my experience over the years, it is always worth it because you always get information that you would never get from somebody sitting on a panel in Ottawa or from a brief that somebody would send in. I recall that those staff members were afraid and nervous about talking to us. We met with many of them in camera for that very reason.
Sometimes we can look just at dollars and cents, which is always important — I’m married to an accountant — but I think we have to look at the added value that we get by meeting people in person.
Senator M. Deacon: You’re welcome to comment on my comment. When I came in today, I was thinking about this. Not to minimize the very important work of the Human Rights Committee but to support and perhaps amplify it, I was thinking that when we’re looking at committees across our system, this is one committee that could be a subcommittee of Foreign Affairs or Legal.
This does not come from an idea that the work doesn’t matter. Human rights will continue to be complex and very much needed. There have been some comments today around efficiencies, but I do want to say that that’s what I came in with today. I don’t know if there is anything else that you want to say to make sure my thinking is clear.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator, it used to be a subcommittee and then the decision was taken to make it a full committee because of the amount of workload. If we look at our calendar and all the studies we have, we need this committee.
I did an interview last week with the Canadian Press. I can’t tell you how many times it was printed, even overseas. I received an alert that it was printed in a newspaper in Morocco.
We deal with stories and issues of human rights. In the world we live in, with the human rights abuses and displaced people we’re seeing, this is a very important issue. Canada is known for standing up for human rights and for standing up for people, nationally and internationally.
I don’t know how my colleagues feel, but to me it makes absolute sense to have a stand-alone Human Rights Committee.
Senator Hartling: I totally agree. Thank you for proposing that and talking about that, Senator Deacon. I think that if we were to lose this committee or have it as subcommittee, we would lose some value in the work that is being done.
Senator Bernard: I absolutely agree as well. As a standing committee, if we’re having trouble in terms of the work being viewed more holistically, I can only imagine what it would be like if we were a subcommittee.
I didn’t know the history of it being a subcommittee of Foreign Affairs. I think that would be a step back, and we really want to be seen as going forward.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the clarification. Again, I wasn’t thinking of it as that you don’t have enough work to do. I was thinking of it as perhaps the amplification of making links with one of those two committees. In my own little world, I was comparing the work that we’re doing in Defence and Veterans Affairs as a subcommittee. I am not saying they are the same, but I was looking at that comparison. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
On that note, I want to thank you very much for your input to the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. We will take into account what’s been said and come back to it. We will be going through an iterative process on many topics, whether they affect the organization, the mandate or the structure of our Rules.
Thank you again for participating. See you next week.
(The committee adjourned.)