THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 2, 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), for consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. My name is Denise Batters, I am a senator from Saskatchewan and the deputy chair of this committee, but today I will be acting as chair.
I’d like to have my Senate colleagues introduce themselves.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good day. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah from Ontario.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today we will be continuing our study of committee structure and mandates. We have many of our esteemed colleagues from the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee. We will have five-minute opening statements.
Today we have with us Senator Ratna Omidvar, Senator Patricia Bovey, Senator Chantal Petitclerc and Senator Judith Seidman. We will hear their opening remarks in that order and then have lots of time for questions.
Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, committee members, for giving us this opportunity. I have been the current Chair of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, or SOCI, since the beginning of this Parliament, but I have been a die-hard SOCI member since I joined the Senate. I really welcome this discussion about reviewing the mandate of committees, and, in particular, SOCI.
To cut to the chase, the mandate of SOCI is overbroad, and it impacts not just the work of the committee, but the work of the Senate for Canadians in a very significant way. First, we receive a great deal of government business, just as the Legal Committee does. To give you some context, since the beginning of this Parliament, we have reviewed and reported on government bills, public bills and completed pre-studies. Looking into the future, we have a number of items in the docket, including sections of the BIA, the Canada disability act, aspects of EI reform, new legislation on federal child care and amendments to the Canada Labour Code, to name just a few. Further, we also have Senate public bills and private members’ bills from the House of Commons that find their way to SOCI and must be dealt with.
I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what I’m saying, and I’m sure my colleagues here will agree with me. The committee is more than willing to roll up its sleeves and get the job done, and we have done so in the past. But there is no doubt in my mind that our over-encompassing mandate, which includes the social health of all demographic groups, ranging from youth to seniors, from disabled to newcomers and refugees, all matters related to the labour market, all mattered related to health and science, including pharmacology, all matters pertaining to new and emerging technology, plus sports and culture, presents a mountain of a challenge to us. There are a number of serious outcomes to this overreach, as I would call it.
Studies are the first victims. I want to underscore how important studies have been to this particular committee. Yes, legislation is important, but the committee is known for its studies, not only in our halls, but across Canada. Just think of the Kirby Reports on mental health, which led to the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada; think of the report on autism, which is finally getting its day in legislation; think about the seminal report on poverty, housing and homelessness that has led successive governments to implement its recommendations; think about the study on social finance, which led to the creation of the Social Finance Fund. These are just a few, but I really believe that the power and longevity of the Senate lives and breathes in its studies.
In the fall, notwithstanding all the noise at the committee around other competing interests, we were able to complete two seminal studies, one on GBA Plus and a forthcoming publication of a study on suicide prevention. But I will admit, it is very hard for us to juggle the work.
Next, and very seriously, colleagues, we are unable to pay attention to the science and technology mandate. As Senator Petitclerc has pointed out previously, science in its general form, including basic science, very rarely gets its moment of sunshine. Certainly, the study has studied artificial intelligence, but only as it relates to health care and prescription pharmaceuticals. However, this committee has not studied general science for over a decade. In 2008, the committee completed a report called Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage. It was a report that looked at the federal government’s science strategy. We were also not able to look at advances in technology, from products, to artificial intelligence and now to ChatGPT.
We are also not able to appropriately look at the research landscape in Canada. On matters of social welfare, for instance, Senator Seidman and I had a chat about how it would be terrific if we could review the architecture of federal social programs. Again, that’s not going to happen because of the pressure on our time.
I’m a solution-seeking kind of person, so let me pivot to some low-hanging solutions that may be available to us. Personally, I believe that science and technology, as a general topic, should be removed from our mandate. I’m not in favour of removing health care, including the science of health, from the mandate. In fact, I believe the committee should be renamed the “Health and Social Affairs Committee” to include immigration and social policy. This does not mean that there would be complete purity in matters of science, but I don’t believe complete purity is even within our reach or possible.
I’d like to make two practical recommendations that would help committees. First, I believe the time slots for committees should be rotated every few years to get some cross-fertilization of members, if possible. Currently, it is impossible for a member of SOCI to be a member of LCJC or Foreign Affairs, also known as AEFA — which we all would love to do — because we meet at the same time. Although I value institutional knowledge on committees, I think a rotation would allow for more diversity to be added to committees. We need lawyers on SOCI, and they need people like us.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Omidvar, if you could just wrap up. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I will make one point that is important. More and more, committees are launching studies based on their general order of reference and not seeking a motion in the Senate. Since committees are the masters of their own domain, I believe this is good. Committee members should feel empowered to determine which issues they want to study. However, there is a hierarchy of studies. Studies done through the general order of reference are like second-class citizens. They don’t get the same importance on the website or in the budget as a study approved in the Senate. I believe this needs to change, and I think committees, chairs and deputy chairs should have regular conversations so as to avoid duplication. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I’m so glad that you brought up mental health because it’s nearing the start of Mental Health Week this week. Of course, this particular committee did an excellent study that was critical to the study of mental health many years ago, chaired by Senator Kirby. I see Senator Cordy here, and I know she was on that committee at that time, so thank you very much.
Hon. Patricia Bovey: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Rules Committee. I want to thank you for undertaking this study and the analysis you’re doing. I think it’s critically important, and I congratulate you for addressing the pressures we all face as we juggle chamber responsibilities, committee work and responsibilities within our caucuses and as independent senators, all of us within our regions, not to mention what we do with parliamentary associations.
As I always said to my clients when assisting with their strategic planning, one’s non-negotiables are the important aspect of that work. That’s what I believe you’re engaged in. What are our non-negotiables of our committee work?
SOCI is an excellent committee. I want to say that we did not compare notes with what we’re saying today. Fortunately, I thought that Senator Omidvar would do the excellent summary she has of the real importance and diversity of our work, so I’m building on that.
As I’m about to leave the Senate, I’m going to take just a second to tell you what our loads are as senators. I’ve been reviewing what mine is. I think it underlines our biggest problem, which is that we’re short members of the Senate to undertake the work we’re doing.
I’m on four committees — though one hasn’t met — four subcommittees, one formal working group and Deputy Chair of SOCI, Deputy Chair of the Diversity Subcommittee, Chair of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group, a member of CIBA and until last week, National Finance. So when we talk about the scope of the committees, I think we also have to underline the scope that each of us carries in this chamber. I was also on the Special Committee of the Arctic, and all of these are important in themselves.
On a personal note, in order to undertake this load, I have to admit maybe it has been a good thing that I live alone and my kids are out of the country. But the essence of your study is very important to look at the relevance of the work of each committee in relationship to the 2023 world we live in, its needs, pressures and issues. The global and local issues are vastly different from when the committee mandates were last determined. Thus, this realignment is necessary. I think that’s especially so when we review the mandate and outcomes of SOCI. We must always be mindful of the efficient use of resources, the dollars, the public purse and time, as well as the hours of both our staff and ourselves. Assessing the balance between the mandates and work of various committees is likewise an important aspect in levelling the work of the Senate.
I believe there does need to be a realignment of committee responsibilities themselves, so let me turn to SOCI.
As you’ve heard, we review many government bills, we review many Senate public bills and we do undertake germane, proactive special studies, which have been the agents of critical, positive change across this country. All are important. The ones I believe we should be directly focusing on are those that substantially address the social needs and concerns of Canadians, such as our suicide prevention framework and the GBA Plus study. Our scope is huge. It’s too large. I think the social and science, where it affects the health and impacts of and on the lives of Canadians, is where our focus should be.
I think — this is interesting — the technology part should be hived off to another committee. Arts and culture need a proper home. There is none now, and as we move further along the path of reconciliation, Black Lives Matter and for issues of cultural diversities, I think SOCI is the appropriate place because that is the humanity of who we are as a nation. Also, as we continue to understand the integral role of arts and creativity in all aspects of society, I believe that too belongs with SOCI.
Madam Chair, I’m suggesting moving technology elsewhere and bringing in the soul of humanity to the Social Affairs Committee.
Let me address another point of this committee: The size. I think it’s too large. I think we can reduce the size and retain proportionality among groups and still do fulsome and solid work, perhaps more fulsome and more solid. There’s not sufficient time to question witnesses, and I know the chair, as I do when I fill in for her, finds it really difficult to continually be in the position of having to cut people off and keep them to their allotted four or five minutes. This would also allow us to focus on fewer committees each and thus do more research for those of which we are members.
I also agree with senators who have said in prior meetings that we desperately need more senators to accommodate our workloads and responsibilities. I’d be happy to answer any questions later on. I think if I say any more, I’m repeating what’s already been said.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: First I would like to thank you for inviting me today to discuss this topic for a second time. I thank you for the work you are doing to standardize, streamline and name our committees, where I had the pleasure of testifying several months ago. Thank you also for your efforts to restructure and harmonize committees.
I had the pleasure of testifying before you several months ago and I will try not to repeat myself. I also read Senator Bellemare’s remarks about how it is time to ask if we can improve our effectiveness and efficiency and look at how our material and human resources are allocated.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I have the pleasure of appearing before you today. I am also appearing in my capacity of former chair of the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology from 2018 to 2021. It is a committee of which I have been a member since I first came to the Senate in 2016 and whose steering committee I had the pleasure and privilege of sitting on for five years.
These various roles allowed me to observe first-hand that the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, or SOCI, is very much in demand, as my colleagues have highlighted. The breadth of its mandate covers a plethora of fields and various federal departments — at least 14 departments from the current cabinet. This partly explains the high volume of work. The number of public policies that have a major social dimension is very high, and that also explains this committee’s heavy load.
I would add that in my experience, it is a regular occurrence for bills that do not necessarily or directly fall under SOCI’s mandate to nevertheless be referred there, because the Senate can refer any issue to any committee. This was the case in 2019 with Bill C-83 and Bill C-84. It is an awfully busy committee.
I had the pleasure of coming here on May 9, 2022, to discuss the proposal to create new committees. I reminded you that this committee gets called upon left, right and centre, and that there is never a guarantee that we will be able to secure additional time to study bills, even when we request it, and especially when it is not for government business. At this committee, we have always had to streamline and prioritize the little time we have.
At the time, I said I was receptive to the possibility of lightening SOCI’s load and I still am. I expressed why I thought it would be very wise to consider transferring sciences and technology to another committee. We discussed a committee on communications, science and technology, which you suggested creating. I agreed with the idea at the time and I still do.
Many, including Senator Ogilvie, the former chair of the committee, have always said that the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology does not study technology enough, even though technology is part of its mandate. Technology is a key facet of life as we now live it.
Therefore, speaking of technology, I would like to present two points that I find particularly important. I feel that our committees must not be out of step with the era we live in. We can draw on the many opportunities of our present era, and we must make use of the modern communication tools we were forced to test out during the pandemic. I believe these tools are well worth exploring to maximize and enhance our effectiveness and efficiency at committees.
I would like to make two points. We should explore the best use of technology and the hybrid mode of organizing committees. We are already doing that with witnesses. I recall that the Committee on Social Affairs was the first during the pandemic to sit in hybrid mode, while I was the chair. We have an opportunity to optimize the effectiveness of committees.
We also need to find ways to minimize cancellations of committee meetings, especially when we are in the chamber. Last week, for example, because bills were being studied in the Senate, we had to cancel committee meetings even though witnesses with disabilities had been invited. We need to explore solutions to this issue because we are wasting a lot of time, which is detrimental to our effectiveness. The committee has a lot of work to do, so every extra time slot is worthwhile.
Thank you very much.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I’m sorry, when I was inviting each of you to speak, I neglected to indicate your positions. Senator Omidvar is the current Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Senator Bovey is the current deputy chair of the committee. Senator Petitclerc was the chair of this committee for a number of years. Now we will hear from Senator Seidman, who is a former deputy chair of this committee and has been a member for many years, including on the steering committee.
Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Thank you, chair. Thank you very much for the invitation. It’s an honour to be here with you this morning alongside my colleagues from the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee. Over the years, I don’t think I’ve ever worked on a committee more dedicated to doing good, groundbreaking substantive work than SOCI.
My experience with this committee goes back many years. I was appointed to the Senate in 2009 and became a member of SOCI very soon thereafter. I have sat on this committee for nearly 12 years, both as a part of the steering committee and as deputy chair.
Now, we all know that Senate committees have a long history of important contributions to the development of public policy through serious expert studies as well as the review and amendment of legislation. They have always been said to be the heart and soul of the Senate, and I ask, can we still make that assertion? Should we be on guard about this?
SOCI itself, as my colleagues have said — and I don’t want to be very repetitive here — does have a very broad mandate. It has been one of the busiest committees in the Senate, and indeed, we have for many years talked about separating out the science and technology piece and ensuring that health stays a component of this committee.
If I just give you an overview of our mandate categories and the various pieces of legislation that have come to this committee since 2009, let me tell you that we have had 28 pieces of legislation on health and welfare, 29 pieces of legislation on what is categorized under the heritage piece of our mandate but are really what we would all call “day bills.” So 28 pieces on health and welfare, 29 on day bills, 11 on the budget, 1 on animal protection, 2 on correctional services — and this goes into the point that Senator Petitclerc was making, where this committee has had a lot of pieces of legislation that aren’t necessarily part of our mandate, but because we have worked very quickly and efficiently, we somehow found ourselves in this situation.
Cultural affairs and the arts, we’ve had 6; employment, 3; immigration and refugees, 10; labour, 3; national parks, 1; pensions, 4; social matters — in this case it was domestic violence — 1; and StatCan, 1. That gives you a breakdown of a very broad spectrum, but obviously there are two categories that are much more substantive.
I’d like to take a bit of a historic perspective, if that’s okay with you, because that’s probably the value-added that I bring now. I won’t discuss various studies we’ve done and what they represent, but instead, I’d like to focus my comments on perhaps four big-picture issues.
The first, promoting our work. My colleagues will know that I take every opportunity with pride to quote our Senate committee reports when I write speeches that I give both in the Senate and in the community. I think, yes, this is absolutely an avenue for promotion — visibility within the Senate, visibility with stakeholders and visibility with Canadians as a whole. It’s promotion for the Senate and the important work we do and the ongoing influence our studies have had on policy, even years later. I’ll say a bit more about that further in my remarks.
The second issue I would point to that I think perhaps is a bit of a hindrance is ongoing motions in the chamber. Tabling a motion in the chamber asking a committee to study a specific subject matter, as far as I can remember, is new in the Senate. Frankly, I think it’s very curious and it’s rather inefficient. We all know these motions have no authority over the work of committees. Each committee is master of its own destiny, so why are we moving these motions? What’s the objective other than cluttering the Order Paper? I think we should seriously think about why that’s happening and whether that should continue.
I think, on the other hand, the point that Senator Omidvar made about ensuring that committees have a separate order of reference for each individual study instead of using their general order of reference is indeed a far better way to go. That’s what we’ve done over the years. I don’t remember using a general order of reference for a Senate study for a committee study. Our studies are usually very specific. We have drawn objectives. We have a plan for the kind of study and what kinds of outcomes, so I think that, to me, is very clear.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Seidman, could you maybe just wrap it up? We can give you some more time in questions.
Senator Seidman: I’m sorry. I want to say that SOCI has been instrumental in studying significant pieces of legislation, social policy that was new with little scientific evidence to back it up. But it’s our obligation as senators sitting on committees to follow up on mandated reviews and regulations once legislation has received Royal Assent. Do you know how rare it is that we actually do that?
I would like to refer to Charlie Feldman, whom you all know, and a piece he has written in the Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law in March 2022 entitled “Much ado about parliamentary review.” There were 51 provisions between 2001 and June 2021 that asked for parliamentary review and a report in legislation. There were 17. There were 51 requests for parliamentary reviews; there are 17 that were actually done.
So the answer to the question — I’m skipping over it now and I can come back to it after — of why it is that reviews, which we think are a way to follow up, aren’t done? Well, the answer is that there’s apparently no meaningful consequence for failure to conduct a parliamentary review. Just think about that. I’ll end right there and I’d be happy to answer questions. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much. We really appreciate that important insight and historical perspective. We will have time for questions now. We have a larger committee here so I’ll start by allocating about five minutes for each Q & A exchange.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair and colleagues.
Listening to Senator Omidvar and Senator Bovey, this seems like it’s a giant balancing act of doing the things we must do in the legislative forum, doing the things we would like to do in the report forum, having enough time to do it, having enough time in not just our personal schedules, but the Senate schedule — because we have interpreters, we have room space; we have all these other things that are in the mix. The committees perhaps are too big or there aren’t enough senators. I’m not thinking of the 105, but I’m thinking, do we need 150 senators and do we need much more time in our personal schedules, do we need to reduce the number of people per committee? What are some of the solutions that we could do, because I recognize while reports are really important — and it’s one of the best things that we do — our obligations are to legislation. We’re legislators first.
The other thing I want to mention is time goes on so that Social Affairs, Science and Technology — I agree with you — at one point that made complete sense because 105 people decided it made sense, but now it seems to make complete sense that social affairs and health or something else should be separate and science and technology, which we all know is a nicely defined area now; how do we manage that? If some of the solutions are to have more committees, then that exacerbates the problems that you highlight in having too much work that needs to be done with the resources including our own human resources. I will pass that question to Senator Omidvar.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Wells. I think as a general rule, committee mandates should only last for a certain number of years; otherwise we get stuck in the rut. Automatic review and renewal of committees’ mandates every X number of years, because the world changes. Who would have thought that artificial intelligence would be lurking the way it does today when this mandate was created? I think as a first, that should be put on the table.
As a second, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague here that we should have fewer committee members than 12. Nine is a doable size. It accommodates proportionality but it also accommodates witnesses, whether they are on legislation or studies or other business before us. It is hugely disrespectful to ask people to come from such a long distance and to prepare for such a long time, so painstakingly. The memory of witness testimony on Bill C-22, the disability act, is very fresh in our mind. I do not like to cut off people with lived experience and substantive things to say. So I think fewer members, a different mandate, reviewed every X number of years.
I don’t like the idea of creating a subcommittee. You could think of that, a subcommittee for science and technology. In my view, a subcommittee is like a committee; it’s just using other words. It uses time and resources, so let’s just call it what it is. If you move in these directions in the short term and the long term, we may have some solutions.
On the number of senators, I’m not going to take on the Constitution in this, so I would like to see 105 senators here sharing our workload and doing what it takes to move our mandate forward.
Senator Wells: This is for Senator Seidman. You have got the power of longevity on this committee, and that’s a high compliment because this — I don’t want to make a comparison to other committees — one’s workload is heavy in both legislation and report and meaningful.
Would you see carving off social affairs and health as a natural fit if we’re going to be doing carving? Is that the most natural fit? That’s the question. Because in the Rules Committee, we have to come up with some solutions and recommendations. You are the veteran.
Senator Seidman: Right. Thank you very much, Senator Wells. Yes, I guess I am the veteran in that sense.
As I mentioned en passant, we have talked about this for quite a long time by now, I would say going back to 2018, 2017. We have talked about carving off a piece of this committee because it is so all encompassing. The House has a health committee, but we can’t just keep making a lot of different committees, so we have to be reasonable. Yes, I would say the natural thing to do is to have health and social affairs and then science and technology, these days especially, as a separate entity.
This committee did do a study called the Integration Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and 3D Printing Technologies into Canada’s Healthcare Systems. Senator Petitclerc and I were on that committee when Senator Ogilvie chaired and Senator Eggleton vice chaired. Senator Cordy was probably on the committee at the time too. It was an incredibly fabulous study, but that’s all we ever did. Now you can imagine a committee being totally reoccupied with artificial intelligence and all the things surrounding that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Before we go on to the next questioner, there is a question I wanted to ask Senator Petitclerc. In your opening remarks, you referred to a couple of bills that you said had been referred to your committee that weren’t directly within the committee mandate, and you referred to Bill C-83 and Bill C-84. I think you said that was in 2019. What were those bills —
Senator Petitclerc: Yes, and apologies for not clarifying that.
[Translation]
Bill C-83 amended the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), is the bill that Senator Seidman referred to.
Although exemplary work was done on these bills, the reality is that given the general aspect of social affairs, it is still very broad and sometimes we end up studying bills that could have gone to another committee that was itself very busy.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, colleagues, for your testimony.
Part of my question was already touched upon by Senator Wells about the size of the committees, 12 people, the advantages, disadvantages, not having enough time for questions. Senator Omidvar suggested that perhaps we should have nine members. We do have nine members on Human Rights, but the challenge we have sometimes is that we don’t have quorum, which takes it in a whole new, different direction. We have struggled with Monday meetings. Do you think committees should maybe meet for three hours once a week instead of meeting for two hours twice a week?
Senator Omidvar: I’m a member of Human Rights and I know we have challenges because of the Monday night. I believe meeting for three hours at a time would make sense. It’s not too long and it’s not too short. Two hours feels incredibly short, especially when you have got a change in the panel when people are in person. We have to suspend for a little while, we have to reconvene. We lose, in my estimation, five valuable minutes. Three hours would be preferable.
As for the matter of Monday meetings, it’s a fact of our life that we are summoned to serve the people of Canada when we take on our appointments. I think the matter of personal convenience has to somehow be addressed. I believe we should be working Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, like all Canadians do. So that’s my point of view on the Monday meetings.
Senator Bovey: May I just add something about one of the issues that has really posed a problem with Mondays and Fridays is the change in airline schedules. It’s very hard to get here. Even from Winnipeg yesterday, the 1:15 flight is now at 3:20, and that’s the one direct flight a day. Some of our problems with quorum on Mondays and the difficulty with finding time for committees on Fridays is really at the hands of the airline schedules.
Senator Omidvar: If I may support that reality, travel is a challenge. I support Senator Petitclerc’s recommendation that we look at new technology so that we can do our work and yet not be faced with vagaries of travel.
Senator Ataullahjan: When I appeared before this committee, there was a discussion about how some committees felt that we were kind of treading on their studies or what they should be looking at. Do you think the chairs of the committees should perhaps meet once every three months just to talk about what they are looking at? I honestly don’t know what some of the other committees are doing unless I’m on that committee. Or maybe, if we have too many meetings already, should the chairs be sending letters or emails to the other chairs to say what they are looking at?
Senator Omidvar: If the question is for me, and I will answer by saying yes, more communication is needed between committee chairs. The format of the communication is something we can talk about. I will just give you an example.
At one committee that I’m sitting on, a proposal was made to study a really important matter and that committee did not know that this important matter was midway through a study in another committee. It’s a waste of time, and senators need to know the general work plan of committees. We do know what the general work plan of the order paper is because we get the order paper every day, but we don’t know what the work plan is of other committees unless you are to look at the agenda every day. There has to be some nimble way of letting at least the chairs and deputy chairs communicate with each other.
Senator Seidman: This also substantiates the importance of having an order of reference in the chamber. If a committee is doing a study, if the order of reference goes to the chamber, everybody knows what the committee is studying, and it’s specific enough. An order of reference for a study is very specific, unlike our general mandates. That would be far more helpful, I think.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I know that in our elevators here in the Senate buildings, generally, they put up the committee schedules, witnesses who are testifying and what they are studying at the time. I always like to look at that when I am in the elevator to just see what everyone else is doing. That’s an important thing that we’re doing.
Certainly, speaking as someone who arrived by plane at two o’clock in the morning last night when I was supposed to get here at six o’clock, yes, airline schedules are difficult these days, especially from Saskatchewan. At the same time, I know that many of us are not just working when we are here in the Senate in Ottawa; we’re working for the people of our regions and Canadians many more days than that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, chairs, for being here today. This is presenting a unique opportunity for us because we have an honourable senator who is leaving — so shoot straight — and we do have a senator who brings a lot of experience and data that’s really helpful.
I feel, as a committee member, we want to get this right. I’m not sure that we’re going to get everything right and everything perfect, but we have talked about schedules rotating every few years. We talked about Monday. Really, Monday is an issue. Making sure that we have the diversity across the country, which we have talked about at other meetings you haven’t been at, is an issue and a challenge on Mondays.
We have talked about the process, and I’m always a little bit confused on how a committee is determined for a study. Maybe that is another area that you have touched on — if you are looking at what you are taking in your bucket for SOCI, maybe we need to be more strategic about what goes to SOCI. I have heard the discussion about science and technology. When I sat on SOCI, the first observation I made was that we’re never going to get there. We’re never going to get there. But then we are also resistant to add committees.
My question is, in that area, of the work of the committee, if we weren’t to add a committee but we’re trying to make them work within the number of committees, do you have thoughts on what work we could give up or where this work could go in existing areas?
Senator Seidman, could you go first for the historical perspective?
Senator Seidman: It’s nice to be a historian. That’s a really tough one. As I said, SOCI did a really excellent study, but it was very limited to its confines within the health field. It was technology and science, but it was in the health field. If you want to look at anything in a broader base, I don’t think it’s appropriate to bring that to SOCI. Transport and Communications does technology as well. Committees do find it within their mandates to adapt, but if you want a specialized committee on science and technology to look at a broad spectrum, you are not going to get it except if you have a committee dealing with it directly. Otherwise, you’ll get a grab bag of various committees and how they are connected to the technology aspect.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for the question, Senator Deacon.
I do not have the exact answer, but when I was chair of the SOCI committee, we discussed this at length with Senator Seidman.
We need to look for a solution. It won’t do to simply move the problem somewhere else. We were looking at creating a subcommittee that would deal with science and technology-related issues. In my opinion, that would, to a degree, amount to moving the problem somewhere else, because that subcommittee would need members, translation, staff and a room. How do we find a solution that doesn’t off-load the problem? It’s important to think about that.
We need to find a solution because we can’t take the social component away from the SOCI committee. We will always have bills. Science and technology are the topics of our time. We shouldn’t be missing out on great opportunities to conduct studies.
I am adding questions to your questions.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: If I can give one minute away, I’m happy to do that. I’m thankful you are here. I reiterate the number of things that I’m trying to prioritize in my mind and what we can bite off and chew at this moment in time to make significant change and improvement so the committees are able to do what they are able to do and be well represented. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to start by highlighting that we have a group of four extremely impressive female senators and we are honoured to have you here.
Senator Bovey, we will miss you. Thank you for your recommendations, which go beyond the SOCI committee. They are very useful recommendations for our overall work. Thank you very much.
Having said that, I’m going to throw a spanner in the works. I am concerned about the silo effect of saying that one committee is for science and technology, another is for health and social services, another is for transportation, and so on. We need to keep in mind the cross-cutting nature of certain subjects. In my opinion, science is one thing and technology is another, and science must inspire each of the committees.
I have a question. There are a lot of fusions of complementary subject areas that are intrinsic to health and human services, and you are in a better position than I to know about that. However, I find it hard to imagine SOCI, as a Senate committee, leaving out the science related to SOCI’s field, just as it would be hard to imagine the Agriculture Committee and the Transportation and Communications Committee leaving out the science that is specific to theirs.
So, if SOCI essentially had a health and social services or social affairs mandate, then how do you picture science remaining a subject that SOCI will deal with?
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I understand what you are saying, Senator Saint-Germain, that a horizontal approach — not just to science and technology, but to a whole range of issues that we discuss at the Senate — is, in fact, the journey and the destination. However, the danger with taking a horizontal approach before you are ready to embrace it fully into your DNA — the danger is it becomes a footnote, as it has become at SOCI.
We are possibly talking about a two-step approach, a short- to mid-term approach and a long-term approach. The short- to mid‑term approach is really paying special attention to science and technology by combining it with communications. If we’re looking for a zero-sum game, no more committees, then I would say science, technology, communications; social affairs, health and culture in one committee and energy and transport in the other. That would create no new committees but keep the status quo.
In the long term, if we were to take your approach, every committee should have a lens on science and technology. Every committee should have a lens on human rights. Every committee should have a lens on disability, equity and inclusion. And that would be nirvana. I’m just realistic and pragmatic enough, Senator Saint-Germain, to say we are not there yet.
Senator Seidman: If I might try to respond to your very deep question, because it truly is a deep question, and it’s very important. I touched on it a bit in response to Senator Deacon’s question when I said that you can separate out science and technology in a committee, but on the other hand, you can leave it be and you’ll have Transport and Communications dealing with it, as they already have, by the way. You’ll have Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources incorporating it, as they already have. Where science and technology is relevant to particular work that that committee is doing, to the subject matter, they should be incorporating it. And in Social Affairs, surely we should be incorporating science when we’re dealing with health issues. And we do. We try to be evidence-based, and we try to look at the science. If I think about the cannabis legislation, the vaping legislation, absolutely. There was no science. And the whole point of trying to have reviews afterward was to take stock of the evolving science around it.
There is no question that it’s relevant to every single committee, and it should be ultimately incorporated, and it should be a lens, as Senator Omidvar says, and we should make sure that we incorporate it.
Senator Bovey: May I just add a little bit? We have to recognize that society is interconnected. I spent an awful lot of my life fighting silos that — we’re very good as human beings just to parcel everything up, and this is this and this is this, and we’re really good at columns. And I think the poking holes in the silos and understanding the interconnectedness between aspects of society as a whole, that’s what SOCI does. That’s what SOCI has been doing and needs to do, and as society becomes more complex, that’s where the — “frustration” is the word I’m going to use — the frustration is that we’re not able, even though we have been, to get to the depth that we might like to.
A question we ask a lot is what’s more important? Getting all this done, or are we really doing it to the best of our ability? And I think tonight when you go to bed, you have got to look at yourself in the mirror and say, “Yes, we really did that to the best of our ability,” and I would hate to see SOCI compromised on the way they answer that question.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Okay. We have three senators left for questions. We were supposed to finish at 10:30, so we’re going to be a little bit past that. But if I could ask everyone to maybe make their questions a little more succinct and the answers a little more succinct so we can make sure we get this in good timing.
Senator Woo: Good morning, everyone.
The question is on the authorities for studies outside of legislation. There are two pathways. One is the general order of reference. You have talked about that. The other is a motion asking you to do a study. But the idea has come up that the general order of reference is not preferable, and you’d rather have, in effect, an instruction from the Senate, but the instruction of the Senate is, in effect, a motion, a motion asking you to do a study. The committee could move a motion to ask the Senate to bless a study, to —
Senator Seidman: I don’t want to interrupt you, but that’s exactly right. That’s how it used to be, Senator Woo. What would happen is a committee would plan a study and a budget to do that study, and they would bring that plan to the Senate in a motion of a specific order of reference to do that study. It’s not a motion coming from the Senate.
Senator Woo: Right.
Senator Seidman: It’s not someone in the Senate who thinks the committee should study a certain subject matter. It’s the reverse. It’s the committee itself, with their committee members, deciding this is the next study we want to do, this is important, and drafting an objective and the whole order of reference, which circumscribes what the study is about in quite a detailed way.
Senator Woo: That’s very helpful. So you could do the study with or without the order of reference, and you can do it through the general order as well, but the order of reference allows you perhaps to have a budget and so on. But that order of reference has to be blessed by the whole Senate; is that correct?
Senator Seidman: It does.
Senator Woo: Okay. That’s very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: I can add a little bit of something to that question, because I think this is very interesting. When a motion from the Senate for a committee to study arrives at the committee, it does create some sort of uncertainty within the membership and the steering because we have the study that the committee decided that they want to do — and we say that the committee is master of its own work, and we repeat that — but then we have something that was adopted on the floor of the Senate that is coming to the committee. So I would suggest that the steering committee members and the committee would benefit for some clarity on that, and maybe there is; maybe there doesn’t need to be clarity, but I wanted to put it on the record that it does create some uncertainty when we have to prioritize.
Senator Woo: For the sake of clarity, somebody had said that studies taken under the general order of reference in the absence of an order from the Senate take lower priority than studies instructed through a motion from an individual. Is that really true, or is it just something that you feel you need to respect?
Senator Omidvar: It is true. A general order of study that is undertaken under the general order of reference does not have the same standing on the website. It doesn’t have the same communications capacity on the website. It can get a budget, but the budget then goes to SEBS for approval.
Senator Woo: That’s interesting.
Senator Omidvar: We’re actually talking about three things. One is the newly emerging practice in the Senate for a senator to table a motion that Committee A, B or C undertake a study. I have looked into that, and the motivation is that the senator wants to speak on it in the Senate and get it on the record. So then other people speak to it, and a motion is passed. It comes to the committee, and the committee is frankly left with, as Senator Petitclerc has pointed out, feeling a little robbed of its own authority, because all of a sudden, we have the senators who have sent us a motion, and let me tell you, as the chair of SOCI, we take that seriously.
The rules on whether it should have precedence or it should not have precedence need to be clarified. They need to be clarified. There is an unwritten rule that because it’s coming from the Senate, you should take it seriously. I don’t know if we should, but I think this is something you should look at.
The other matter is general order of reference versus a specific order of reference. I think there should be a little more clarity on creating more equity. The studies that are done under a general order of reference — Senator Ataullahjan will remind me. Is the Islamophobia study done under a general order of reference? Yes. You see?
Senator Woo: But that got a lot of traction.
Senator Omidvar: But on the Senate Communications website, it will not get the same standing, let’s say, as —
Senator Woo: Says who, though?
Senator Omidvar: The Senate Rules say so, sir. Not me.
Senator Woo: Very interesting.
Senator Omidvar: Senate Social Affairs is doing a very important study on migrant workers and the needs of employers. It’s done under a general order of reference. The committee decided to do that under a general order of reference. We will hopefully get approval from the appropriate authorities to do things around that.
Senator Woo: It’s lower priority?
Senator Omidvar: It is a lower priority. It will not get — okay.
Senator Seidman: If I might just add one last point, Senator Woo, I think the reason a lot of committees decided not to take specific orders of reference for specific studies to the chamber was a concern that it would get stalled in the chamber and get lost on the Order Paper or detained in some way, and therefore, they wouldn’t be able to get the study done. I think that is what happened, in reality, so we should think about it.
Senator Cordy: I’m going to ask both of my questions at the same time, since you’re not giving much time.
One of my questions is related to what you’ve already been discussing, which is the prevalence of motions in the Senate for studies by committees when the person is not even on that committee, which can be very frustrating. I’m finding there are a lot of short studies, which certainly have their place for a quick glimpse at something, but we are not having the long-term studies as we did with post-secondary education, Senator Seidman, or with mental health, which took years, in fact. We did it in various stages, but it took years.
I’ll present this as a question. Is it not better that the committee brings in the budget for a study? There’s a budget and a reference to what’s going to be studied. There can be questions for the chair or the deputy chair in the chamber about what the committee intends to do, how they’re going to go about it, what kind of witnesses they might have. First, is that not a better way to do it? Second, would that not allow for greater communication among senators as to what all the committees are actually studying? Because now we don’t know as it’s done under general reference.
As well, the House of Commons examines committee mandates after each election. Sometimes they even change the title of the committee. I would not say every two years, but I would say after every election — it might be two years, it might be four years — should committees not be looking at their mandates? Transportation and Communications is a prime example. Communication has gone leaps and bounds. Bill C-11 was the first bill dealing with communication in 20 or 30 years. That’s unacceptable. I wonder if you could comment on either or both of those questions.
Senator Seidman: I have a short answer for you, if I might. My answer is yes and yes.
Senator Bovey: My answer is yes and yes, but I wouldn’t want us to be tied to elections because as the chamber of sober second thought, we have a more encompassing and longer term. I would suggest every five years.
Senator Omidvar: I would agree with Senator Bovey; tying it to every election makes it overly political. We are the house of sober second thought, so every five years.
I would comment on the value of spot studies. They are very useful. They are done under a general order of reference because they’re something in the works that we need to quickly comment on, and I think this is where the work of Senate studies speak, where a spot study actually generates legislative change, as with the spot study on international aid at Human Rights, which has generated a bill that is going to come to the Senate. I think that is also when we prove not just our long-term value but also our immediate value.
The Deputy Chair: If I could just interrupt on that point, I know when Senator Tkachuk was chairing the Banking Committee, he often did those types of very brief little studies that dealt with pressing matters of the day. It was something that got very good attention for the Senate and dealt with really important issues.
Do you have anything else to add, Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: No. That’s great, thank you. I will say that short studies have their place.
Senator Marwah: Thank you, colleagues. You’ve been a very insightful panel. My congratulations.
The comment was made that we should think of spinning off science and technology as a separate committee, and there’s a lot of merit in doing that. I’m struggling with the comment that science and technology today underpins everything. It underpins agriculture, banking, transport and communications. Communications is much more a technology issue than anything else today. I’ve been struggling with how to deal with this intersection of different things at different levels for every committee.
Would it help if we created a structure whereby you have a primary mandate of every committee and then a secondary mandate? While Banking looks at things related to banking, they would also look at other elements. If Agriculture looked at agriculture, they look at primarily soil health, but they also look at the use of technology to really solve climate change issues. Would it help to structure it that way? That way, you can deal with the intersection between the different problems we face much more effectively than if we kept it in just the name itself.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that question, Senator Marwah. I think we should spot test that idea in a coming piece of legislation at one of the committees, add a mandate and see if it works. My worry is the dominance of certain mandates over others. And if it’s foundational and horizontal, as Senator Saint‑Germain has suggested, I worry it will also be overlooked.
Why not test this idea with a certain committee for a certain time and see how it works? Make a motion in the Senate, “We ask committee so-and-so to consider every study or piece of legislation in the next two years with this lens and report back to us.”
Senator Marwah: Let me give you an example. Let’s say a piece of legislation comes that deals with technology but affects how we deal with things in the agriculture sector. Then we can say, because it deals specifically with agriculture, maybe it’s better studied by Agriculture than by Science and Technology. And if you have a primary and a secondary mandate, you can do that with far greater flexibility rather than saying, “Oh, it’s technology; it has to go to Science and Technology.”
Senator Seidman: If I could respond, Senator Marwah, we have kind of been touching on that very discussion since Senator Saint-Germain put forward her question. I think it’s possibly a natural evolutionary process. As science and technology become more intrusive, in a way, committees may find themselves doing studies where they just naturally incorporate.
I would guess that, for example, the soil study that Agriculture has been doing has to be looking at the science and technology aspects of that. They couldn’t do their study without it. And if you want to do a fintech study in the Banking Committee, you’d have to look at technology. You couldn’t do the study without it.
To me, it seems like there’s a natural evolution happening where science and technology are going to implicate themselves in a lot of studies that a lot of different committees are doing.
So I do agree with you that if you do have a special Science and Technology Committee and you relegate all those studies there, we start now impinging on other committees’ mandates. It’s a challenging question. It truly is.
Senator Petitclerc: Very briefly, I think there is a danger as well in being overly descriptive in the titles because the more you add, you may forget something as well.
I’ve been thinking about this so many times. I believe that in our committees we sometimes miss opportunities to share studies. If one committee is diving deep into a study but a specific element of that study could be undertaken by Finance, for example, or Human Rights, I think there would be opportunities for committees to work together and have another committee really target specifics in a study. I would see value in that, but that’s a whole other conversation.
Senator Bovey: I agree that we have to be careful about the titles of our committees being too prescriptive. I think we all know the titles of the committees, but how many of us really know the mandates of all of those committees? If you were doing strategic planning for an organization, the mandate or the mission of the committee is what’s really important. That can be succinctly done.
As you’re renaming committees, try to not make the name of the committee the mission of the committee. Make the name the essence of what it is and make sure the mandate of the committee is short, succinct and to the point as the not-for-profit society has been doing for years.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much. I want to thank all of you for coming here today and for taking your valuable time to provide us with these excellent insights over the course of many years of this important Senate committee. Thank you to all senators for the great questions you asked today. We will see you next week. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)