THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 16, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:34 a.m. [ET] pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. My name is Senator Denise Batters. I’m from Saskatchewan. I’m normally the deputy chair of this committee, but today I’m acting as chair.
Before continuing, I will invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: Good morning. David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Good morning. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec. I’m replacing Senator MacDonald.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah from Ontario.
The Deputy Chair: This morning we will be continuing our consideration of committee mandates and structures. In the panel this morning, we will be examining the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, including its Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
I’m pleased to welcome this morning the Honourable Senator Tony Dean, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence; the Honourable Gwen Boniface, former chair of the committee; and the Honourable Senator David Richards, Chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
I will invite the three of you to make your opening remarks. We’ll start with Senator Dean. I would invite you to make your opening remarks of no more than five minutes, please. Then we will take questions.
Hon. Tony Dean: Good morning, colleagues. I appreciate very much the ability to talk to you about the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, or SECD, this morning. This is my first chair role in the Senate. I’m about 16 months into the job and it has been long enough, I think, to assess how our work corresponds to our mandate.
The first thing I want to do is commend the quality and degree of support that we receive from our procedural clerk, Ericka Dupont, and also from our Library of Parliament legislative analysts. I’ve worked with some top-flight public servants in my time, but the ones we have supporting us here are second to none.
You’ve seen our mandate. I won’t repeat it. It’s clear and broad enough to encompass a large range of issues and opportunities in the fields of national security and defence. It includes a mandate to engage with specific departments, such as DND and Public Safety, as well as those involved in national security.
I will mention briefly that having looked at the 10-year activity breakdown by committee in your background materials, SECD, in my sense, sits — not surprisingly — in the mid-range in terms of its work on government and other bills, as well as pre-studies and special studies. My sense is that this has also been the case over the past 12 months.
In February 2022, the committee launched a major study of security and defence in Canada’s Arctic in light of melting sea ice, the opening up of the Northwest Passage, and the buildup of Russian Arctic military bases, as well as concerns about our northern defence capacity. In parallel, we’ve seen the growing interest of China in Canada’s Arctic, especially in critical minerals and seafood, to the extent that it has declared itself as a near-Arctic state.
Within weeks of our study on security and defence in the Arctic being launched, we saw the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has only increased — in fact, magnified — the work of our committee.
As a result, we’ve been talking regularly to relevant departments and security and defence leaders across myriad files, including the obvious necessity to renew Arctic-capable defence capabilities from undersea through to satellite surveillance, as well as early warning systems that are responsive to hypersonic missiles. We’ve looked at our relationship with NATO and travelled to its HQ in Colorado Springs and seen first-hand the unique binational leadership structure shared by Canada and the United States.
We’ve engaged with key departments on multiple files, and I think it’s fair to say that we’ve tested the boundaries of our mandate, we’ve been into its corners and we’ve found it resilient.
In terms of membership, we have a very strong committee but with limited geographic diversity. Right now, Senator Anderson from the Northwest Territories, and Senator Richards are the only members from outside central Canada. We expect this to change in the near future. This may be due, in part, to the committee’s Monday 4 to 8 p.m. time slot, although history tells us that this is not determinative and it has not always been the case.
Turning to time slots, we typically have two to three panels each meeting during our Monday time slot, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. We rarely go all the way to 8 p.m., although we do where necessary. Same-day travel sometimes makes it difficult for our members not only to get there but to stay there, in terms of fatigue.
I’d like to touch on rule 12-18(2)(b), which requires chairs to obtain agreement from leaders of the government and opposition in order to sit on Mondays after the break. We know, I think, this is a rule that stretches back to a time when Monday meetings were rare and actively discouraged. They are now part of the architecture of the institution and I think the Rules should accommodate that.
I have a few words on the importance of studies. As we wind down the Arctic study, we’re undertaking shorter studies on issues such as disinformation, cybersecurity capabilities, retention and recruitment in the Armed Forces and the RCMP, and digital national transnational repression.
In terms of bills, we looked at Bill S-7, which was controversial in dealing with border searches. It involved looking at the balance between border security and risks to individuals and kids from the trafficking of pornographic materials, on the one hand, to constitutional rights of travellers on the other.
We’ve also examined divisions now from two budget implementation bills, both of which dealt with the relationship between the importance of personal searches for security and individual privacy issues.
We have very little mandate overlap, from my point of view, and a pretty clear delineation from the work of others. One area of emerging potential overlap in the committee’s mandate could be in the area of emerging technologies. This is where technology policy, or the importation of technology, attracts issues related to national security and defence. In those cases, there is probably a case for referral to SECD.
On the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, or VEAC, I’ll leave it to Senator Richards to continue.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Hon. Gwen Boniface: Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the committee this morning in my capacity as the former chair of National Security and Defence.
My tenure as chair began in November 2017 and lasted until June 2021. Of course, due to the circumstances of the pandemic and alterations to our Senate committee schedules in response to this, I will restrict much of my comments to the Forty-second Parliament.
The mandate of the committee — and I will use terminology that we hear in the security and defence community — is, in my view, fit for purpose; that is, it is clearly defined and enables the committee to study a wide range of topics that fall within the security and defence umbrella to meet its objectives.
While I chaired the committee, we had quite a heavy legislative agenda. We completed studies on Bill C-21, amending the Customs Act; Bill C-23, respecting pre-clearance; Bill C-59, which amended multiple acts in relation to national security; Bill C-71, amending certain acts and regulations respecting firearms; and Bill C-77, which included a declaration of victims’ rights in the National Defence Act.
With the exception of Bill C-71, this legislation fit squarely into the committee’s mandate.
Our committee also studied the subject matter of certain provisions of Bill C-74 and Bill C-97 pertaining to the Budget Implementation Act, and Bill C-45 respecting cannabis.
In the time we had between government legislation, the full committee released a study on sexual harassment and violence in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee through the National Security and Defence Committee released two studies on the transition from soldier to civilian and on veterans’ use of cannabis for medical purposes.
When it comes to committee membership, at that time there was a surprising amount of geographical diversity as opposed to what Senator Dean is experiencing now. This could simply be a result of increased availability on flights pre-pandemic. But to note, we had long-term members from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and for our shorter term near the end of his tenure as senator from Nova Scotia, Senator Mercer.
As it pertains to the four-hour time slot, I sympathize with Senator Dean’s point that, by the end of the meeting, there’s a certain level of exhaustion. At the time I was chair, we were meeting from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the afternoon on Mondays. There are also some positives. Since my tenure included considerable time spent on government legislation, those four hours were very valuable and we used the entire time slots on most occasions. I find it helped with the quality and continuity in the questioning of our witnesses from panel to panel.
Four hours also allowed more flexibility when deciding upon witness panels. You can stick to the traditional one-hour panel or expand the time based on the number of witnesses on the panel or their importance to the subject.
I’ve anecdotally heard that there would be more interest in the committee if it didn’t meet on Mondays. I have noticed the current slot has shifted from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. This is good, although slight advancement in order to add flexibility to the travel schedules of senators. However, I fear we may be losing expertise around the table as long as the committee continues to sit on Mondays.
I have one comment to finish. I would echo Senator Dean’s remarks about rule 12-18(2)(b). The best work of the Senate is found in committees. According to the rule, after the Senate breaks for a week or more, those committees that would normally sit on a Monday are unable, unless they previously passed a motion to that effect — which we know is easier said than done — or have a signed agreement from the leaders of the government and the opposition. I believe this rule should be amended or removed to enable an easier process for Monday committees to meet after a break week and put them on an equal footing with other committees.
I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Hon. David Richards: Veterans Affairs has one hour a week and it is at noon. We have had 17 meetings. The hours of the meeting time were 13 hours and 25 minutes. We have had 25 witnesses.
Minister Lawrence MacAulay appeared before our committee on May 4, 2022 and provided us with an update related to the Veterans Affairs mandate on homelessness and time allotment waits.
The subcommittee also heard from Veterans Ombud Nishika Jardine. Other than these two meetings, and the recent meeting on the Hill 70 memorial project about the Third Battle of Ypres, the subcommittee has dedicated most of its time over the past year to the study of emerging treatments for veterans suffering from PTSD.
This study, of course, is inconclusive but I believe important with the variety of concerned witnesses, both Canadian and American, describing the benefits of psychedelics in combatting the effects of PTSD which seem more promising than pharmaceutical drugs in significant relief. However, more controlled research and commitment to serious and immediate study is needed, especially in Canada. The report will be tabled on May 31. Then we will turn our attention to homelessness among our veteran populations and the Homes for Heroes project.
I think we perform our work fairly well given the one-hour time slots that we have. If we wanted greater representation, we should have more members. There are five members on our committee from three different groups: two from Ontario, one from Atlantic Canada, one from Quebec and one from the North.
Everything discussed in our committee pertains to the health and welfare of veterans. A report on alternative treatments for PTSD will be ready on May 30. Of course, our concerns will overlap the concerns of Veterans Affairs in the other place concerning these pressing matters of PTSD and homelessness, but our witnesses and evaluations are strictly our own. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.
Senator Richards, thanks for bringing that up. I didn’t realize there was only a one-hour time slot for Veterans Affairs. I wonder if that may have been partly because, at the time when that was initially in place, the Senate sittings often started at 1:30. Now they start at 2 p.m. on Wednesdays. I wonder if there might be some ability to expand that to a 90-minute slot.
Senator Richards: We generally have one to two witnesses. When we do that with five members, it’s okay. I’ve often thought we should have more members on our committee. I thought six would be good, even seven, but certainly six. It would give us a more expansive view overall of our concerns and what Canadians’ concerns can be if we had another member.
An hour and a half would be good. I don’t know if we would use an hour and a half. We would pretty well always go over the hour. That might be something to think about.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, I appreciate it.
Senators, if you could keep your question-and-answer exchange to about five minutes.
Senator Wells: I hope that wasn’t directed specifically at me, chair.
The Deputy Chair: I wanted to get started on a good footing.
Senator Wells: Thanks very much to the panel. I was, at one time, the deputy chair of Veterans Affairs. We sat on Wednesdays for about an hour and a half. I found that time helpful.
Senator Dean, have you seen any evidence that the report work the committee does has affected government policy?
Senator Dean: In my 16 months, no, because we’ve been working predominantly towards one report which has yet to be published. I don’t have the experience historically to respond to that, although others will have.
Senator Wells: On your Arctic study, are you including an assessment of the assets in the North? Has that included Labrador?
Senator Dean: It hasn’t specifically included Labrador. We have placed a great focus on assets, and particularly military and defence assets.
I mentioned the need to replace defence and surveillance infrastructure from undersea to land-based to air-based and satellite-based, and that’s a matter of some urgency. Of course, in parallel with that, we’ve had extensive discussions with Indigenous communities about the overlapping benefits between defence investments and community infrastructure — and particularly broadband — the development of runway infrastructure and things of that nature.
Senator Wells: I would ask that you please ensure that you do consider Labrador. There are a number of significant assets in that area and it does qualify as Arctic.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Allow me to thank all three of you for those very professional presentations.
I take it from your three speeches that to date, your current mandate still seems complete and relevant as it is. However, Senator Dean, you remarked that the committee would benefit from a mandate to examine new technologies.
Do you believe that a committee’s mandate should include the study of science and technology? My premise is that it would be preferable to ask each committee to examine the impact of new technologies in its own field. Do you think this would be a realistic approach?
Finally, my sub-question relates to the mandate of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Do you think that being entitled to two consecutive hours every two weeks would allow you to be more efficient and have more stability in terms of receiving witnesses?
[English]
Senator Dean: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. I understand absolutely the nature of the question. I’d be a little bit wary about mentioning science, but I would certainly welcome a focus on technology. I say this because we’re having this discussion in the recent context of the debate over Huawei technologies and what might be embedded in those technologies.
In the realm of cybersecurity and intelligence operations generally, we are seeing a concern about where new technologies are taking us and those technologies that would impact on the rights and securities of Canadians.
I’m not sure it’s a matter of a mandate change. Those technologies that carry with them a security and defence impact will likely be readily apparent to us. I’m simply making the case that this is a transition we’re seeing leak into committees’ activities now, and it’s just important to recognize that it is likely to grow. But there is some overlap in terms of technology policy with other committees, and it may be that some clarification over time around where there is a demarcation point might be helpful.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I’m not sure, but it might help a lot. We often get bumped on Wednesday anyway. There are certain times when we don’t have any meetings because other things are afoot.
If we regulated it for two hours every second Wednesday, that might help. We would certainly be able to have more witnesses. I’m not sure what Senator Boisvenu would think of that.
I’ve said before that I think we need another member on our committee. I think it would be good to have six instead of five. And if we could have a meeting for two hours every two weeks, that probably would be sufficient, yes.
Senator Cordy: Senators Dean and Boniface, you both spoke about the rules that don’t accommodate Monday meetings. The example would be when there’s a break week and you can’t sit after a break week. All of these things come in. I was here when both Human Rights and Defence were brand new committees. Of course, you can be a brand new committee if you get your slot on Monday, et cetera. So you understand it.
I wonder if you would be able to give our committee — I’m not trying to give you homework, but I am — some of the rules that you think affect committees that are specifically sitting on Mondays and that we could, as the Rules Committee, perhaps have a look at them and make changes. Because they’re not complicated changes; they’re commonsense changes. If you wouldn’t mind doing that, thank you.
I’m going to go back to the time slots, four hours. We’ve heard over and over again from committee chairs and deputy chairs that there just isn’t enough time for committees to sit. This gets worse during June and December when committees are trying to do it.
Your committee sits for four hours. Are there concerns that it’s too long? We’ve heard committee chairs say three hours is the maximum. But you both seem to say with four hours, you’re a bit tired at the end, but it works. Could you expand on that?
Senator Dean: Practically, I think it depends on the topic. There are some topics that members would sit for five or six hours to work on. There are others where they’re capably handled in three hours. So we will go to four hours where the issue demands it. We’ll scale back to no less than three hours when we think that we can manage the issue or the witness list in that sense.
I would be loath to say that we could conduct all our activities with three-hour meetings. There are some times when we’re stretched to do it in two or three sessions of four hours. That flexibility is very important. At least from the perspective of our committee, I would strongly argue to maintain the four-hour time slot. When it’s not being used, it’s easily shared, if I can put it that way.
On the rule around sitting on Mondays, it adds a degree of uncertainty into our scheduling. These days occur relatively frequently and it requires discussion. It is a little bit administratively burdensome, as well as a little frustrating in terms of concern and worry about the loss of the time.
I don’t have views on other rules. Senator Boniface might. But sitting on Mondays has been the biggest irritant for committee members. I would ask Senator Boniface if you have thoughts on the rules beyond that which require attention.
Senator Boniface: I don’t, but I’m happy to follow up and take a look and come back to you.
With respect to the four-hour time slot, we found it helpful for legislative study. As you know, just by the bills — Bill C-59 and Bill C-71, national security and then firearms — there were a lot of witnesses in order to get it into enough time and back out into the chamber, just by some of the timing, four hours was essential.
The unpredictability of whether you can sit on the Monday or not makes it very difficult for travel and for people to make plans. You may want to think about whether or not it’s the opposite: You sit unless there’s a decision made by others not to sit that day because it doesn’t help.
Similarly, I’m pleased to see it changed to 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. I know in a number of cases, you had to travel on Sunday in order to be here on Monday for 1 p.m. I think we lost committee members because they didn’t want to continue that practice of travelling on Sundays.
Senator Cordy: We heard frustrations by committees that were trying to plan trips outside of the Ottawa bubble. I know being on the Defence Committee, it’s really important to get out and talk to members of the military, RCMP and so on. First, have you been struck by that?
Second, we’ve also heard that it’s frustrating if you have a committee of 8, 10 or 12, and you’re told that only three quarters of the people can attend, even though everybody has attended their committee meetings faithfully. Has that been a problem?
Senator Boniface: It wasn’t in our case, because we were so heavy on legislation, so it did not impact us. I have a view on it from a different perspective but not from this committee’s perspective.
Senator Dean: In my 16 months, we have had two trips, including one across the Arctic, which was hugely important and impactful. Any members who wanted to travel could travel. Indeed, on the first part of that trip to Iqaluit, we had some supplementary senators who chose to travel because of the nature of the study itself. There are no issues there.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: As a member of both the Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs and the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, I will try to be as kind as possible to our witnesses.
We’ve found, through the studies we’re doing on Arctic security, on cyber-attacks, on foreign countries’ disinformation interference, that it’s all about communication. Is there a need for a study on harmonization between the Transport and Communications Committee and the National Security and Defence Committee? Having sat on the Transport and Communications Committee for eight years, I find that there’s a common core there that’s very important.
When we look at military issues around the world, whether it’s Canada’s participation in NATO, the modernization of the Armed Forces and its recruitment problems, as we discussed yesterday, as well as all the safety issues related to street gangs, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee to return to its pre-pandemic schedule of sitting a minimum of four hours a week?
[English]
Senator Dean: Thank you, Senator Boisvenu.
I take your point, and I mentioned earlier the issue of technology and communications that impact on national security and defence. It was precisely the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications that I had in mind. I think there could certainly be greater correspondence and communications between those two committees. Over time, I think there should be some demarcation of mandates and tasks.
Beyond staying in touch and sharing mandates and sharing work programs, I wouldn’t see the need for anything other than, perhaps, rare joint meetings of those committees for the purposes of sharing information. I think we know what one another is doing, and we just need to be clear around mandates.
Senator Boniface: Thank you for the question.
I would agree with Senator Dean in terms of how we align committees in terms of overlap or potential for overlap. I was sitting on the other side of the table when we heard from the Human Rights Committee. I sit on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee, and I see similarities in some ways between what we are studying or could potentially study in the Foreign Affairs Committee that we may do in the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee.
I think there is an opportunity, and, perhaps, the committee would consider bringing chairs together at a couple of points in time just to get a feel for what the overlap is, particularly on related international and national security issues.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I am very pleased that this work is being done. I’ve been in the Senate for 14 years, and apart from adding new committees, there hasn’t been a great deal of thought given to the global evolution of technology on the international scene, at all levels. The committees’ objectives should be updated to address the major challenges of the future — in 10 or 20 years’ time — because things are changing rapidly. It’s a study that seems fundamental to me.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you very much. We are grateful for your presence, especially since you are part of one of the first committees to come and testify among those who sit for four hours on Monday evenings.
First of all, a four-hour schedule is much more efficient than two times two hours, in my opinion. I think committees that sit on Monday evenings and, for some, Tuesday mornings and evenings, are a bit discriminated against in this sense; it takes away valuable time from the subjects at hand.
One of the mandates of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee is to study the Coast Guard. Do you think the Coast Guard should be part of your national security mandate?
It was suggested that committee chairs would, at a time to be determined, report on what their committee is studying and what it will be studying in the near future.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these topics.
[English]
Senator Dean: Thank you. Yes, indeed, we have been looking at the Canadian Coast Guard in the context of security and defence in the Arctic. There is likely crossover with the work of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. This goes to infrastructure, the need for upgrades and the need for new Coast Guard vessels. Marine rescue has become more important, given the melt in the Arctic. Security has become more important, and there is the question around whether our Canadian Rangers might participate, to some degree, in Coast Guard activities.
This is absolutely important, and I think it is a reminder for us to stay in touch with the Fisheries and Oceans Committee and make sure that we are not overlapping in our work.
The notion of forward information on our potential work programs is really important. Because there is crossover between the interests — not the mandates necessarily — of different committees, it does strike me that we often do much of our work in isolation from other committees. The sharing of activity agendas in advance as common practice, I think, would be a terrific step forward, and I thank you for the suggestion.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Boniface, did you have anything to say on that?
Senator Boniface: Yes. I would agree, with respect to the chairs. I have alluded to that.
I think it’s really important. It’s one of the things I raised as a concern, and my thinking is that with the spectrum of issues that we deal with across committees, what is it that we are missing, and what are the gaps?
Particularly when we should be a bit forward thinking in terms of the challenges that Canada will face going forward, both domestically and internationally, there is an opportunity there we may be missing.
With respect to the Coast Guard, I totally agree with Senator Dean. It really has a diverse mandate, and a piece of the mandate being studied in one committee, not looking at how it reflects in another committee or how that overall mandate comes together may be, again, another missed opportunity.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Senator Boniface, since you chaired this committee for a number of years, how does your committee handle the drafting of reports? Is it the steering committee that does a fair bit of the report drafting, along with the library analysts, or how do you go about that?
Senator Boniface: Yes, it would be done that way. We had a very good steering committee. Senator Boisvenu sat there. We worked together, took it back to the committee, obviously, for their review and the final pieces that would be fixing up things and then it would come back to the steering committee for clearance by vote of the committee. It worked quite well in terms of how the report was done, reminding you again that it was a limited report because of the legislation we are working with.
The Deputy Chair: To Senator Richards, did you have any experience with drafting of reports with your subcommittee? How did you handle that?
Senator Richards: There are only five of us. It was all in camera. If Ericka Dupont and I discuss anything, it immediately goes to Senator Boisvenu, the deputy chair. When we were making decisions on the report, it was the five of us in camera who did this, a couple of weeks ago. We do not really have a steering committee since there are only five of us. We get together and decide what we should do.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, colleagues, for your thoughtful and cogent input. It is very appreciated.
I have two questions, one for Senator Dean and then one for the three of you. The first question follows up from Senator Batters’ focus on reports.
Senator Dean, I am curious as to how does your committee check facts or data that witnesses have provided if there are concerns about them. Is there an independent mechanism to do so, such as using the Library of Parliament to review the information? And if so, how does that process occur? How does this get reflected in reports?
Senator Dean: Well, the preface is that other than short reports on studies of budget implementation bills, I haven’t really got experience in that realm so far. Senator Boniface could remark on that.
I will say that we rely very heavily on our Library of Parliament analysts. They track very carefully witness evidence. They are in the process of drafting the Arctic study report.
To go back to a previous question, our steering committee has, obviously, oversight of that. For the most part, the checking of facts would lie in the hands of our analysts who are doing the drafting.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. Senator Boniface, do you have anything to add to that?
Senator Boniface: No. The important piece, at least from my time as chair, was to ensure that we were going back and fact‑checking the witnesses in the context that witnesses said certain things so that we didn’t cherry-pick quotes without having a good sense of the context. I would agree that we relied on the analysts.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
The next question is broader and builds on Senator Boniface, Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Dean’s comments about technology. Technology is expanding way beyond what we had imagined it could be a decade ago, even two years ago, and well beyond what was considered when committees were formed, particularly with the generative AI. We are going to be playing catch-up to that technology for a long time, and there are substantial concerns that cut across health, governance, democratic institutions, civil society, the nature and type of employment, security internally and externally, everything that you can think of. We have never seen anything like this in human history.
Are our committee structures adequate to deal with this huge technology that is coming and how it will impact not just the Senate, but all of Canadian society? If not, what kind of things should we start to think about, particularly for this type of technology, which is unprecedented and so different than every other kind of technology?
Senator Dean: I will say that, along with everyone else, we are just beginning to realize how important and potentially dangerous this is, and, along with everyone else, we will be playing catch-up to a certain extent given speed of development. But we do need to do that. It is a very important observation that the Senate, as a whole, needs to grapple with.
Senator Boniface: I would totally agree. It falls into the category I was referring to; if we go across the spectrum of committees and what we are studying, are we actually studying issues that impact us for the future versus looking back? I worry that on exactly the types of issues you are saying, we do not know what they are, and we are not in a position to be able to study them well enough to help prepare for the future.
Senator Richards: Yes, I would echo that. I think we don’t know. We don’t know how this is going to impact us, even in two years. Certainly, it is dangerous, or potentially very dangerous. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and we should remember that when we study in any committee. However, 10 years ago we did not even know what artificial intelligence was, really, and now it is a major concern. We should be vigilant about it. I have no idea where it is going to be in four years; I do not think anyone in this room knows that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that. Excellent quote from Senator Richards, as we would expect.
Senator Busson: I think each of you talked about the importance of the committee work and studies and how important and thorough our committee studies are.
I, too, on the committees I serve on, am quite proud of the work that is done.
To make a comment — and I would like to hear your opinion on my comment — I have also been surprised, perhaps, or disappointed that these amazing studies end up being tabled and shelved, in a lot of cases. And the opportunity to communicate the recommendations or the results of these studies — I sometimes believe that we are missing some opportunities. Could I ask you to comment on that and whether or not you have any opinions on whether that is correct and, if so, how might we ameliorate that?
Senator Dean: Yes. We have to look quite a way back into the past to find huge winning examples of Senate studies that have changed thinking about public policy. People often talk about the Kirby report and the various studies on, for example, drug reforms.
Having said that, we in this place — and through the work of our committees — hold in our hands a huge privilege and opportunity to impact public policy, and I sometimes think the importance of that opportunity is lost a little. This really goes to communications and our ability to get the word out once we have developed the report.
Huge leaps in public policy change occur, it has to be said, relatively infrequently, and so to be fair to all of our committees and their chairs, they work really hard. We are working in a space that is occupied by many others, to some extent.
I will say that we could do a better job of communicating the results of our work and getting it out there and doing that in a way that is broadly supported by our colleagues across the Senate.
It is a challenge. I see it as an opportunity as well. Many people at our committees would like to see more impact.
We are competing for space and we are competing for space in an increasingly crowded policy environment.
Senator Boniface: If I could add to this, there is also an opportunity from session to session where, as a chair, you can look back on the reports and have witnesses come from government to say, “What have you done in response to this?”
I would say that I probably did not turn my mind to that well enough when I was chair. That would be something committees could concentrate a little on, in terms of benefit of what the responses from the government be on the record.
Senator Richards: On a personal note, there are thousands of veterans suffering from PTSD here and in the States. Research is vitally important. We have had 17 meetings about this, this year. I do not know what will happen to our report or where it will go but I know we are doing it with due diligence. We want it to be taken seriously. It has to be taken seriously. Whether it is or not is, unfortunately, not up to the five of us in that subcommittee.
Senator Busson: It was pointed out at one of the other meetings that when a chair tables a report, they can, if they wish, comment on that report as it is tabled in the Senate.
It is my opinion that that should not be an option but that it should be mandatory that 5, 7, 10 minutes be taken to explain the highlights and recommendations. I wonder if you would like to comment on that.
Senator Dean: I will say from the moment I arrived here it has puzzled me why that is not done. I would strongly support a move towards doing that for the purposes of transparency. We just talked about getting our message out. If we are not getting our message out within the institution first, we will not start to move it more effectively outside of the institution. It is a terrific observation and suggestion.
Senator Richards: I agree.
The Deputy Chair: I would point out that there have been more recent studies in the Senate than the ones that Senator Dean was mentioning, which have garnered a fair bit of attention and feedback after that. I would point to the legal court delays one that we had, a very lengthy 18-month study, which we continue to ask the justice minister about when he comes to our committee. If there are parts that he has not acted upon yet, we ask him about that. Also in the Banking Committee, they did a very good study on interprovincial trade barriers, which is another one that garnered significant attention across the country plus they also had the opportunity to follow up.
Senator Marwah: Good morning, colleagues. My question doesn’t pertain to security but is a general one given your experience as chairs and being veteran legislators for a number of years now.
There have been many issues raised by various people, such as whether we should be looking at contracting committees or creating new committees to deal with emerging issues and given where the world is going. There are constraints, such as we are not allowed to sit when the Senate is sitting, which creates a problem for some committees. We have limited time slots because most committees sit Tuesdays to Thursdays and hence we have limited time slots. And translation is also a constraint given that fact.
If we are going to solve these issues, something has got to change. The way that I see it, there are four alternatives of what we can do. We can reduce the number of committees; we can sit while the Senate is sitting or be allowed to sit while the Senate is sitting; we can extend the days to go to Mondays and Fridays, like National Security does; or we can increase the time slots going from two hours to three hours or more, and you have great experience in terms of going to four hours.
Given those choices, how would you prioritize that? Which would you rank that we should look at first in terms of trying to resolve some of these constraints that are before us as we rationalize the committees?
Senator Boniface: The answer is that I think it would be all of the above. There are points in time where sitting when the Senate is sitting would be helpful. Sometimes it is because there is pressing legislation. I went through this as chair with Bill C-71 because there were just so many witnesses in such a short time frame. There could be some consideration to that.
Again, I think we have to rationalize the committees. I am speaking to your question, should there be less or should there be more committees? We have to look at what the committees are doing and whether or not we as the Senate and, as a group, have a priority in terms of how we look at it. Are we looking forward? Are we looking in review on that?
Those are two important things. I used to sit on the Legal Committee and I did for some time. I found the two-hour slots twice a week actually quite good because it is far more technical. It is an excellent committee but far more technical and it is usually bills, other than as Senator Batters said, the court delay report, which is an excellent report.
In some ways it is balancing out what people are doing at committees and what priorities are for the Senate. Obviously, covering legislation is a key one, but also looking at what our overall goal is. I am not sure that we have actually asked ourselves that question. Maybe this committee should be asking itself that question.
Senator Dean: I think first and foremost, greater flexibility, providing committees and committee chairs with as much flexibility as possible to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances and very different sorts of studies and mandates, some of which are referred to us. We do not have much choice about those.
In terms of the number of committees, we operate — it goes without saying — in the sphere of a federation that is large, complex and multi-faceted, and in which there are many significant areas of policy challenges and policy opportunities.
I would be, frankly — without thinking about it — more cautious about thinking about contracting the current range of committee mandates and activities. But I do think greater flexibility to make them work more productively and to adapt to rapidly changing conditions is very important.
Senator Richards: I agree with all of that. The thing about it, of course, is that we’re up against times in committees and we’re up against translation and all of that. I would actually like Veterans Affairs not to be a subcommittee but to be an actual full committee. I really think that it is important that it is. I do not think it will be as long as I am in the Senate, but maybe someday it will be.
Then again, we are dealing with the time allotments, translation, rooms and everything; I do not know how to figure it out. But I think that you are right. We should have more flexibility on when and how long we can sit. It would be good to bring that forward.
Senator Black: I will be very brief. This is for my information. Forgive my ignorance but to be clear, we are breaking next week; that means that on May 29 you cannot meet because of our Rules?
Senator Dean: We cannot meet without the permission of —
Senator Black: Correct.
Senator Dean: Even yesterday, I was speaking to the clerk about the uncertainty associated.
Senator Black: What about next Monday? It is a break week but it’s after a week we have sat. Can you sit next Monday or have you essentially lost two weeks?
Senator Dean: We can sit the following Monday. It is the Monday directly following a break week.
Senator Black: But I mean what about next Monday? If it wasn’t a holiday Monday, could you meet even though we were on a break week?
Senator Dean: Not without special permission.
Senator Black: Again, without permission. So you really lose two weeks around a break period?
Senator Dean: Yes, that’s right.
Senator Black: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: On a brief second round, if you can keep it to three minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: My question is complementary to Senator Marwah’s. We know that Senate committee inquiries, initiatives and reports are very important and have often led to changes in public policy and legislation. More and more, however, we have non-governmental Senate bills, obviously, which add to the work of the committees. Often, they will prevent committees from initiating individual investigations.
Should we have criteria to select non-government bills and ensure, even before they are referred to committees, that they have a chance of being passed in the House of Commons? We’d then avoid having committees busy with such bills when there’s little chance of them having any consequential impact.
[English]
Senator Dean: I understand the question, and I appreciate it. It’s a very tricky question and one that would require the attention of the Senate as a whole and not just us at this table. I won’t go further than that, but I understand your question.
Senator Richards: I agree. You’re dealing with senatorial matters in committee. It would have to be brought before the Senate and not here.
Senator Boniface: I agree.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much to the three of you. It’s been a most interesting morning. You’ve all been very specific in your responses.
I’m just wondering if we should look at committee mandates periodically. We know they do it in the House after elections. We’ve heard from a number of committee chairs and deputy chairs that we should perhaps be looking at it every five years. Many of the mandates are outdated. It would be an understatement to say that Transport and Communications should be studying telegrams. That would be one that’s not up to date; we look at new technologies. Should we be looking at committee mandates periodically?
Senator Dean: Very briefly, yes. The world is changing around us, as Senator Kutcher says, faster than we’d like or think and, in some cases, faster than we can catch up. For “periodically,” I think five years would be a good time frame. We don’t want to get our hands into this too frequently, but I think it’s important from my perspective.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, everyone, for a very interesting perspective on a long important committee of the Senate and for being here today and, to all my Senate colleagues, for your great questions. Thank you. We’ll see you next week.
(The committee adjourned.)