THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 31, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:30 a.m (ET)., pursuant to Rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (the Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. Today, we will continue our examination of committee structure and mandates.
As planned, we have no witnesses today. Before we get to the main topic of discussion, allow me to introduce myself: Diane Bellemare, Senator from Quebec. I am Chair of this committee. We will begin with introductions, starting to my right.
[English]
Senator Cordy: My name is Jane Cordy, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Good morning. Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
Senator Omidvar: Good morning. Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Hello; Raymonde Saint-Germain, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Black: Good morning. Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Wells: Good morning. David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I am happy everyone is here. Our objective today is to pursue our conversation on the structure and the mandates of committees. It’s rule 12.
We will be working on a report that will summarize what we heard from witnesses — ideally, I would like the members who have listened to what everyone had to say. They will have a value add in the conversation on these different topics so that we can put the testimony in context. That’s the objective.
I would like this committee to be in public to inform the public about our deliberations, how we work, and also to leave something for our colleagues when we will be talking about the structure and mandates in the Senate Chamber and that so we could always go back. We also have the documentation of our work. In the past, everything was in camera, and it is lost when the session closes. I think it’s important for our work, because we held a lot of hearings, that there is something we can refer to.
With the working papers you received for this committee, there is a summary of evidence that was distributed to you. Also, you have a list of questions that we will go back and forth with just to help us in our conversation.
This is the working paper you received, with all the numbers. It could seem complex, but it is drafted this way to help us know which paragraph we’re talking about and so forth. It will not be presented in the same way when we will have the report. This is a working paper. We will have the comments of the members of the committee, and we will report what the witnesses said. I would see us ending when our deliberations are over.
Let us start with our document. We will go page by page. We will receive your comments, and we will enrich the the document as we advance in our discussion. Let’s start with page 1.
We will be working with the English version. It will be easier for everyone.
In the introduction, it says:
This document summarizes the testimony heard on the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (RPRD)’s study on committee structure and mandates.
From 28 March 2023 to 3 October 2023, RPRD heard from 31 current and former senators representing 11 standing committees and one subcommittee. On 7 March 2023, RPRD also heard from Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada.
Do you have any comments on that?
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I don’t know if we need to go through it page by page. I have read the document.
I want to commend our analyst, because it was not easy to take into consideration what we’ve heard from all the different witnesses and then put it in the context of the general items. I commend you. This is a good job.
The only thing I have to say on this entire report is a typo on page 18. Item 117, Some members “or” should be changed to “of.” That’s it. I totally agree with this report.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ringuette. This was not what we talked about. I can hear from everybody, but I thought that we would enrich the document.
I have already received some comments from members of this committee that I included, and I thought that some other members would like to comment on what we are reporting. This is why I would like to go page by page.
Senator Ringuette: But you’re not going to read every page?
The Chair: No.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
The Chair: Good. Perfect. If you read it all, everybody, in depth, no problem. I will just call the numbers.
Senator Wells: This is going to be a very comprehensive report. We’ve gone through a lot of witnesses. We’ve gone through a lot of discussion. There are a lot of overarching — I don’t want to say “themes” — categories with respect to committees.
I should know this, but I don’t remember; what is the delivery date for this? Is it the end of June?
The Chair: As it says on page 2, the report plan is four reports. Report 1 would be “Summary of evidence and committee and member observations.” This is what we are starting now, and it will be finished by fall 2023, so in a couple of weeks.
I hope Report 2 will also be finished in a few weeks. It’s “Select Amendments to the Rules of the Senate of Canada.” I contemplate at least two propositions to the Senate as a whole, and it is a change in the Rules for the Monday session and the Tuesday session. It is not drafted yet, and as soon as it’s drafted, it’s going to be tabled in the committee. That’s coming.
Report 3 is on recommendations from this committee on “Mandates and Structure of Senate Committees.” Today, I wanted to have a general discussion on those issues, on mandate and structure, so that, at least, we can see where you’re at. There were some recommendations or propositions that were made by some witnesses. Do we keep them, or do we relativize them or put them in context and so forth?
We have some work to do on that, and I think in 2024 that we will be ready to do something. Maybe it will be earlier. I hope so, but it’s not certain. We may want to hear some witnesses if we want big changes.
If we have only incremental changes, then it’s going to be easy, but if some people contemplate an overhaul review of the structure of committees, it may not be. So today I just wanted to put some questions on the table on those issues so that you can think about that.
Report 4 is “Membership of Committees.” How do we choose the people on the committee? How is it done? How can we have, at the same time, regional representation, diversity, proportionality, equity and all those things that we’ve been talking about? Maybe we would have some thoughts that we would like to share in the Senate as a whole.
This does not impede us from talking about other subjects that we would like to do. These are the four reports that I think should be done by 2024.
Today, we start Report 1. Maybe we’ll have some recommendations, or maybe not, but at least we’ll be reporting on what we heard, and we’ll be reporting on what we think of what we heard, so we will have a conversation and add value in this discussion.
Do you agree with this process?
Senator Batters: I’ve gone through a previous version of this report in significant detail, and many of the changes that I asked about have been incorporated, in a fashion.
I do think that even though, yes, everyone has read it, it is the norm that we would go through page by page. You certainly don’t need to read every page, but perhaps we can do it like, “In this section, does anyone have any changes to suggest?” Or something like that.
That’s how, in other committees, we’ve gone through reports. I think that that’s a benefit, because it could have definite discussion, if that’s what you were planning to do — I don’t know — because you also sent out that list of questions or something like that.
The Chair: [Technical difficulties].
Senator Batters: Yes, and when I asked you about it a week ago, you didn’t think we were going to be going through this report page by page today.
The Chair: Well, yes.
Senator Batters: You did? Okay.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Batters: I misunderstood, then. I do think that there is a value to do that. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other comments?
We can start with the themes. The first big theme is “General,” and the first section is “Role of Senate Committees.”
We have paragraphs 8 to 12 in this section. You also have some questions that we thought would be interesting to talk about.
As it is said, we have 17 committees, but when you look at them, it is clear that they are different. You can group committees as being administrative committees or committees that support the management of the Senate, like the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee, the Audit and Oversight Committee, the Ethics Committee and the Selection Committee, and we can even put the Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament Committee in this group.
The Rules of the Senate also say that you can have legislative committees, but we don’t have legislative committees. We don’t really use this rule. The Rules also say that you can have special committees, and we did use this rule at some point in time in the Senate to have special committees, like the Senate Modernization Committee. We had the Arctic Committee. We also had the [Technical difficulties] Organization Committee. Those were special committees and of a short duration. They were not permanent, evidently.
When you look now at what we do in committees, we observe that besides the five committees that are more managerial, within the rest, you have committees that do a lot of legislative work and committees that do research. I want to have a discussion with you about that.
When we look at the mandate and the structure of committees, do we want to keep the structure as it is, or do we want to have, as other countries have, some legislative committees or more research committees?
Senator Kutcher: I couldn’t understand whether you were asking us to give our comments or our input on these sections. Is that what you would wish?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Kutcher: Could we do that now on the section that you have raised?
The Chair: We are now at “General.”
Senator Kutcher: On the “Role of the Senate Committees.”
The Chair: Yes, the “Role of the Senate Committees.” Is what is written sufficient, or do you want to do something?
Senator Kutcher: We’ve all read what is written, so you want our comments now on that?
The Chair: That’s right.
Senator Kutcher: Great. Can I make a comment?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
One of the things that hasn’t been addressed and I think should be is whether we have a capacity in the Senate to be nimble and responsive to critical national challenges. This is a real concern.
If I could just give a couple of examples, health and human resources have been a huge challenge for us over the last three decades. In the last three or four years, the Senate has been silent on this, but a Senate study could have been excellent on it.
England, Australia and New Zealand have instituted independent reviews of their countries’ pandemic preparedness. Our government hasn’t done that. We need it.
This is a role that the Senate committees could play. Maybe not within the current structure of committees, but I think we should change the structure to fit the role. I am putting this on the table as a potentially essential role that the Senate committees could play, whether it’s a special committee or whatever, but ways to respond to critical emerging national challenges that could be nimble.
I just raise that for consideration.
The Chair: Thank you for the excellent comment. You broke the ice. This is exactly what I want us to do now, add value to what we heard and on those different topics so that when people read this, they will hear this.
In addition, the members outlined the fact that maybe we should be more responsive to the actuality and the crisis and so forth. Thank you, Senator Kutcher.
Are there any other comments on the role of Senate committees?
Senator Kutcher: Bullet point 12 — it’s in the same section but on the next page — talks about developing expertise. The issue comes up again later in the report.
Some senators already have substantive expertise that can enrich committees. Some of that is discussed a bit later, but I think it’s also important here in terms of the role of committees. They should make use of the incredible expertise. For example, when I think of Senator Harder and Senator Boehm and foreign affairs, we can’t get better expertise in Canada, in my opinion.
I think we have to recognize somewhere that the expertise of senators can be used to enrich committees. How that is selected is another issue, which is later, but it needs to be recognized up front.
The Chair: Do you think we should say that the role of the Senate is in sync with its mission of sober second thought or should we not say it as it is?
Senator Ringuette: I think what Senator Kutcher is trying to convey has a little different wording. For instance, in your last intervention in regard to number 12, it says “Additionally, as senators develop expertise and long-term perspective . . . .” Maybe before this we should say that the Senate is fortunate to have various expertise in different fields of study. That will make the statement that Senator Kutcher is trying to convey.
In regard to your first comment, Senator Kutcher, which was about nimbleness, I agree. Now, where should we put this item?
The Chair: I know that there are a lot of other sections where this could be addressed.
Senator Omidvar: I don’t believe we are able to be nimble. I don’t think we are nimble, because we are hamstrung by the constraints of committee mandates, which are sometimes not able to respond to issues of national importance that arise. Senator Kutcher mentioned a couple of issues. Because the work of our committees is planned for at least a year, it’s very difficult to insert a new emerging issue into committee work.
Maybe we should note that the structure of the committees, their mandates and their work plans do not allow for the kind of nimbleness that the evolving situation in Canada and the globe demands. For instance, with AI, SOCI is not able to study it, because we don’t have the bandwidth and the time.
The Chair: This is why we are having this review. Committees have grown up, as we know, organically since 1867. There have been some reviews, but the reviews have been very small.
Senator Black: I would suggest that this is a perfect role, to just insert it either as a recommendation or noting, as Senator Omidvar has said, that we can’t do it now. Either way, it is an option, a role, for committees. I fully agree.
Senator Yussuff: The obvious reality is we’re not elected people. In that context, at times, there could be consensus about challenging issues facing the nation. We should rise to that, because you could ultimately look the issue with some guidance as to how we manage it.
There have been particular moments here in the history of the Senate where that has happened, where the Senate has looked at something in depth, with some concrete recommendations that had a profound impact on the nation. Mental health was one of them. Senator Kirby’s work stood out very starkly in terms of the accomplishment of it but also the national dialogue that it brought to an issue that did not get enough attention. We’re still struggling with it, but the reality is it got national attention. Commitment has been made, the Mental Health Commission and what have you. We’re still working on this issue and trying to put more resources on it.
As an evolving federation, the reality is that we are always going to be confronted. Senator Kutcher’s example is a very classic one. Pandemic readiness is a reality of 21st century planning. We don’t have a choice anymore, because we know diseases are airborne. People travel around the world and no matter where they go, they bring back things with them without understanding the complexity, which will have a profound impact on the health of the nation. If we don’t make this a priority of the nation, how do we deal with it in a different way than we did the last time?
There are things we can learn. I’m not suggesting we will always find consensus, but there are times when this place is quite innovative in the way it finds consensus to move forward.
I’m only suggesting that because I believe that even if we had a consensus on this, we still require a broad group of senators coming together. So for the greater good of the country, we need to do this, and let’s find a way to do it.
The Chair: We have a rule in our Rules that says we can have special committees. Special committees could be used more for specific topics of emergency and so forth. Maybe we could allude to that in this section, that the Rules already provide it, but we do not often take the initiative of this rule. We don’t do it often.
Senator Busson: That’s an excellent idea, whether it’s this report or the next report. Senator Cordy and I were just discussing it very briefly, listening very hard. There has to be, somehow, a hot button or a start button for something like that. It brings up the nimbleness that Senator Kutcher was talking about. There needs to be a mechanism that does a short circuit on the bureaucracy that it sometimes takes to get a special committee started.
Perhaps in this we may want to make a note that we will have to address how this happens. I agree that’s a good avenue to go.
Senator Kutcher: I think this has been a very rich discussion with a lot of important points raised, and I think Senator Busson’s point about having a process to trigger something like this is important.
Thinking ahead of push back, we don’t have the resources to do that, and I just want to put this on the table at the beginning. The resources of the Senate should be put together to allow the Senate to function optimally. The Senate should not be functioning bound by its resources. I think we have it ass backwards, frankly, and that we have to think of it in a very different way. Maybe we need to think about the optimal functioning of committees and then resource them properly instead of saying we can’t have committees functioning optimally because we don’t have the resources. I want to put that at the front of this report. As I was reading through the report, that was the elephant in the room, that we can’t change because we don’t have the resources.
Senator Cordy: That was my point exactly. I think committees come up with really good ideas and it’s that you can’t do it. You can’t travel. If you can travel, you can’t take your whole committee with you. You can only take four people or six people or whatever, or we don’t have the time, we don’t have interpreters, we don’t have this, we don’t have that.
If we are going to have our committees running efficiently — and we all understand that COVID just turned the whole world upside down in the Senate and outside the Senate as well — we really have to look at what we are going to do with committees, and we need the resources. We need translation, we need staffing for committees, and we should be leading the charge on this.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: The main point that I want to raise is actually the answer to your question. This question is asked often in the document: should the Rules of the Senate be even more specific when it comes to the mandates and powers of committees?
Chapter 12 of our Rules is fairly well designed and based on extensive experience. It is important to allow committees the necessary flexibility, rather than be overly prescriptive or limiting. The major challenge ahead for us is to review the mandate of the committees in light of the contemporary issues facing Canadians, irrespective of how the House of Commons is structured. There will always be ways to get bills from the House of Commons or the government, or bills of public interest, to a committee.
The risk we run is to confirm the theme-based mandate of each committee on the basis of the evidence we heard. Unfortunately, a number of witnesses had conflicts of interest. Only some witnesses, presidents, directors or committee members said that their committee’s mandate could be reduced or expanded, but very few showed any openness to merging with other committees or changing some committees’ priorities.
Our role as members is to look at the evidence and current-day issues and find the best solutions for ensuring that the number of committees is reasonable. I don’t think that we should add a committee. I am not including the special committees that we are able to create from time to time.
Our role is also to ensure that these committees can operate effectively, with decent schedules and qualified members. Obviously, we need to consider expertise and representation, and ways to make proposals to the Senate on initiative-related mandates. These measures already exist in the Rules.
I would take care to avoid making the Rules overly prescriptive, which could undermine the freedom and agility that committee members need.
The Chair: You’re absolutely right, especially considering that the Rules currently allow certain initiatives. We are not using them, or we may not understand them well enough to put them to good use.
Senator Ringuette: I wanted to add to Senator Saint-Germain’s remarks. We must not get bogged down in the minutiae. Otherwise, we will end up at the same place where too many past examinations of committee mandates have led us, namely, to a compromise that I think fails to meet the demands of the current situation involving too many committees; too many members on committees, committees that want to hear from the witnesses they called, and so on.
To return to the matter of fundamental examinations focused on topics of current interest, we have special committees for that very purpose. The existing formula for striking a special committee requires a senator or a group of senators to bring a motion in the Senate, which must be carried. This process exists now. Considering the short time available to us — one meeting a week — I would like it if we could shift the conversation back to committee mandates, structure and the number of members, if possible.
The Chair: We’re getting there. The text contains some thoughts on that.
[English]
Senator Batters: I want to go back to the point raised earlier in this section about resources and how they’re allocated and that too often we have seen, especially during COVID and since then, that the Senate committees are not commonly afforded the same kinds of resources that the House of Commons committees are, and they generally have been receiving priority. This became especially acute during COVID when everything was upended because there was a need to make decisions about committees — when they were able to sit, how often, that sort of thing.
For a part of that time, I was the deputy chair on CIBA, and even leading up to it, there were too many times where I felt like when we asked questions about that we’d receive the answer, “Well, the contract that was negotiated has the House of Commons receiving priority for broadcasting or for translation,” or things like that, and that is not acceptable. While we may be a chamber of sober second thought, we are not a secondary parliamentary institution. We are an equivalent parliamentary institution. We have a different role, and so for anyone who sits on CIBA — and also those who negotiate these types of contracts — that always needs to be kept in mind, and we shouldn’t accept that the House of Commons has priority on those types of major elements.
The Chair: Next week, Shaila Anwar will present to us. Even though we should not be limited by our resources, as an economist, I know the first thing you learn in introductory economics 101 is resources are rare and needs are infinite. We will have a scenario telling us how many committees can sit at the same time, taking into account the committee rooms we have, taking into account the numbers we are. Some scenarios will be presented just for information, and that will help us when we need to recommend the number of senators per committee, the number of committees and so forth. Next week we will be doing that.
Senator Omidvar: I’m pleased that Ms. Anwar will be presenting. It would be important not only to understand the constraints we are under but what are the points of flexibility? I think that’s what I’m looking for. Where can we stretch and evolve? I am completely with my colleague Senator Kutcher that the committee structures must meet the needs of the committees, but I also understand what you’re saying. Needs are infinite and resources are limited. So where do we go from here? I would like to hear from her point of view on where the flexibility lies.
The Chair: To go back to our documents, I believe now that we gave the comments needed for the section on “Role of Senate Committees.” From what we heard, we will be amending this part.
We are now on page 3, “Structure of Committees,” which we have already started in your comments.
I have a specific question for you. Would you like to have some changes in the Rules or in our process when we think of the membership of committees, when we think about the scheduling of committees? Talking about three groups of committees, because those groups are different; the managerial committees don’t do studies or travel or do legislation, but they have to be there — CIBA, SELE, Audit and so forth. These can have some kind of procedural process of populating those committees.
Then we have other committees that are thematic, but these other committees could also be thought of differently if we have a group of committees that we say are legislative committees. It would be the committees where legislation goes. Other committees could be thematic committees. Each senator could be in both of those committees and should be having at least one legislative committee and one thematic committee.
I was wondering because it could help focusing the scheduling for legislative committees and to schedule committees on thematic. If this is not the kind of approach you would like, maybe it should be said, if you think it’s worthwhile to think about.
Senator Ringuette: I’m going to break the ice again. We’re already complaining that there are too many committees, too much work for the current sitting senators because of vacant seats.
When you say you could have a legislative committee that deals with legislation but a similar committee on the same team —
The Chair: This is not what I’m saying.
Senator Ringuette: That’s what I understood. We’re looking at doubling the committees.
The Chair: No.
Senator Ringuette: I personally find that if we develop expertise in a committee, which is what we are trying to do constantly, then the legislation in regard to that expertise should be going to that group of experts.
The Chair: I think that’s interesting. You made a very common sense point, but what I was saying is that when you look at our committees, you can group those who do legislation and those that don’t. The Social Affairs Committee, Legal Committee and Finance Committee, those three committees do almost only legislative work. They meet often when the Senate sits and they are big committees. If a committee does a lot of legislation, should that influence the way their membership is determined, when it sits and so forth?
This is the kind of question I’m asking. When you look at what is actually happening, you have committees that do legislative work, that sit when the Senate sits all the time. They have more sitting hours than what is provided at the beginning of a session, and you have committees that do not a lot of legislative work, they do research and sometimes they don’t even meet twice a week and they have two slots a week.
So to divide our discussion, would that be a consideration when we look at the structure of committees? You have those managerial committees, you have committees that do a lot of legislation and you have committees that don’t do much legislation.
I will phrase my comment in another format. Is that the kind of consideration that we should take into account when we look at the structure? But if you prefer to look at each individual committee without regrouping them, I don’t mind. It’s your work; it’s just a question.
Senator Batters: I kind of feel like we already have that in large part. I don’t know if we necessarily need to have some big philosophical discussion about it because it already basically exists. We have CIBA and Rules and these committees that are focused on the managerial aspects. They generally meet once a week, sometimes more if needed. Then we have these legislative committees that largely do legislative work, but not only that. It’s just they get very busy. Aside from Finance, which commonly does meet when the Senate sits, Legal sometimes does but I would not say that it’s common. It’s not frequent maybe I should say, but sometimes they do if need be when there are particular bills that need to pass very quickly. And for ,SOCI, again, it could be occasional but I don’t believe that they do that very frequently.
When there’s time, then they are able to do studies and things like that. Other committees are more generally focused — not always — on certain themes and studies, but when there’s legislation they handle that too. Again, they generally tend to be ones that meet a little less frequently but more if needed.
I feel like we already have that. Certainly for our group, I would say that the type of members that are put on those types of committees are people that our group thinks would be the best suited to those different types of tasks as are pretty well already laid out.
The Chair: Other comments on the structure of committees?
Senator Cordy: I know that we talked about the size of Senate committees, and I’ve heard people speaking about the fact that maybe some committees are too big, maybe some committees aren’t big enough. Should we look at that? Some committees are very large.
I think with the different structure of the Senate, we’ve got one fairly large group in the Senate. We’ve got four smaller groups with under 20 each. Then it makes it challenging to put two or three people on a lot of committees. So should we consider that?
I know that in point 16, the size of committees is referenced. I don’t know how people feel.
The Chair: We will talk about the numbers of senators per committee. It’s on page 7.
Now we’re on the structure of committees, it’s the architecture of our rule. When you look at the Rules, the architecture is that we put all the committees on the same footing; they are all equal.
Maybe we’ll leave it at that now, and perhaps when we discuss the mandates in more specific points on another section, we may raise it again. So we’ll leave this section as it is — this is what I understand — if you’re okay with that.
Section B is about the mandates of the committees. On page 4 of mandates, the first point is “Amendments to Current Mandates and Committee Titles.”
As you know, we reviewed the mandates of committees last year. We had a report where we harmonized in the Rules the descriptions of the committees. We decided to define the mandates of the committees in a very general format, making it possible to be more flexible in the subject that we were studying.
Now we have here, in point 1, a summary of what the witness told us or asked us. In paragraph 21, we have the summary of what the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade told us. They want to add “development” to their mandate. Additionally, some witnesses said they would like to have “international human rights” added to the mandate.
On the second point, it’s that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry’s mandate may be expanded to include “natural resources,” so it would be “agriculture and natural resources.” The other point was made that the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee wants to remove “Science and Technology.” For the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communication, people say the mandate was described as outdated; transport and communication might have been linked, but they are not linked.
Perhaps we can take those points one by one, each one individually, and start with Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. Would you want to have a value added in this report or leave it as it is? How did we receive that comment?
I know the job is hard. We could table a very summary report in the Senate, but at one point or another, we will need to have some recommendations.
Senator MacDonald: I was on Transport and Communications for 13 years. I think they should be separate.
The Chair: Separate.
Senator MacDonald: There is no question that both areas are huge, and I believe they should be separate.
The Chair: So you would say in this report that the members of the committee agree with the fact that transport and communications should be separated.
Senator MacDonald: I can’t speak for the other members, but I do.
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I feel we’re mixing apples and oranges here. My impression was that we are tabling a report with the different elements that our witnesses provided to us.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Ringuette: We are not at a phase of making recommendations. That is my understanding. If that’s where we are, then we are now looking at Report 3.
The Chair: Okay. You’re not prepared to add anything else to that?
Senator Ringuette: It’s just that we have to be consistent in the way we are going to report.
My understanding is that we are providing a report for the Senate as a whole to acknowledge the testimony that we have had on these different issues. I don’t think we’re at the phase of making recommendations. It’s a very good document to stimulate our thought process, and hopefully all senators will read it.
That’s my interpretation, but if I’m wrong, please correct me.
The Chair: No, you’re not wrong.
Senator Kutcher: I got a bit confused. Maybe it was because I didn’t understand, but my understanding from your initial request was for us to make comments on these different sections, not to make recommendations.
Are we still doing comments —
The Chair: Yes, absolutely. I apologize — maybe it is the way I expressed myself. Being a francophone, I’m sometimes not as subtle as I can be in French. I could speak in French, but I thought that maybe because the French community here is not the majority in this committee, it would be easier for everybody else that I speak English, but maybe it’s not easier.
I understand this is what we are doing. We are not making any recommendations. But we might comment, and at some point in time, depending on how we make our comments, it could help in the recommendation process.
We have to start somewhere.
Senator Kutcher: I think this is great.
If I can I could make an observation and a comment on this — not a recommendation — when I read through all this — and this is fruitful for disagreement on everything — I have trouble understanding where “communications” sits because I don’t know what “communications” means. It’s been put into “science, technology and communications.” I understand very well how science and technology fit, but I don’t understand where communications fits. Maybe I don’t understand what communications actually means. It was “Transport and Communications” and Senator MacDonald said it didn’t fit in there. I don’t know if Senator MacDonald’s understanding of “communications” and mine are the same.
I would appreciate a clarification of what that actually is so we could better understand where it might fit. That’s all.
Senator MacDonald: My experience has been that communications is all about technology and information exchange, and the way technology affects our life.
In all our time on Transport, most of our time was spent on transportation issues; we didn’t spend a lot on communication issues. We know how important it is today. The technology, connectivity, communication and the movement of information are so critical and so dominant. We hardly spent any time on the issues in the 14 years I was there; about 80% of our time was spent on transportation issues.
The Chair: You have to understand — and maybe the clerk can add to what I’m going to say — this committee is a very old committee. It was created, and it has been a long time that Transport and Communications has existed. At the beginning of Confederation, communication was postal and telephone. The name of committee has not been changed through time. These committees have been created through time, so they have been reviewed a little bit, can you add something?
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: I think you covered it quite well. It’s a historical element where communication was often related to transportation; the postal service followed the rail lines and things of that nature.
Things have clearly evolved in both aspects of that. There might be a better way of organizing the work, or it might continue to be a pair of related topics. Those are things you will need to consider.
Senator Batters: The last sentence of this Transport and Communications part says “Additionally, the reference to “telegraph” should be removed from the TRCM’s website.” I was asking our Library of Parliament analyst before because of a few comments made by different witnesses and also maybe members of this committee. They believe “telegraph” to be part of the mandate.
Is it part of the mandate or just on the website?
The Chair: It’s not in the mandate. When we look at the mandate in the rules, it is very general. It is different on the website.
Erin Virgint, Analyst, Library of Parliament: On the website, it still mentions the telegraph for the committee, but in the rules it does not mention the telegraph anymore.
The Chair: We will leave it as it is for now and incorporate any mandate that will come up.
The next point in this report is to add a reconciliation lens. Some witnesses have noted that this should be a lens for all the committees. Is it agreeable that we leave it as is?
Senator Batters: I had a comment right before that section starts where it’s says that the “following subject areas could be grouped together as standing committees,” and the last one listed there was “Energy and Transport.” I have a comment about that.
I don’t recall that coming up at a meeting. Perhaps it did, maybe just once or something like that. It’s “Energy and Transport,” paragraph 23 on page 5. I recall hearing the other two, but I don’t recall hearing the combination of energy and transport together. As the conversation just happened about the Transport Committee, having sat for a little while on parts of the Energy Committee, I know that’s a very busy committee. I have occasionally subbed into the Transport Committee, and that’s a very busy committee. To combine those two would not be solving a problem there. In fact, it could be making it worse. It seems like an unworkable solution, and I don’t even recall it coming up.
The Chair: Note 31 is there, and it says evidence on May 2, 2023. In parentheses it says that Senator Omidvar suggested that. Would you agree to remove that from the report, or would you like it to stay?
Senator Omidvar: I’m kind of lost here, chair.
Senator Batters: I didn’t recall that, but Senator Omidvar, apparently that was your suggestion that energy and transport be combined. I don’t recall that comment being made, but I just don’t think it’s a very workable solution.
Senator Omidvar: I know that I commented on science and technology being its own committee. Maybe the conversation led somewhere, but I’m happy if —
The Chair: To leave it like that?
Senator Omidvar: Are we amending the report? Are we reflecting on it?
The Chair: No, we are not amending. It’s a draft.
Senator Omidvar: Well, then it’s what we heard. If I said that, then —
Senator Batters: Aren’t we able to make changes to this? It’s not a finalized copy.
The Chair: I thought so. I thought we were able to make changes. The report summarizes evidence. Choices have been made when writing the report. It doesn’t include all the evidence we received.
In the past, I have received some comments from members — like Senator Batters amended the first report — and we said, “members of the committee think.” I thought — and I repeat again — that maybe members of the committee would like to have input on what we heard from our colleagues because it’s a work-in-progress. If we want to do that, it would be a paragraph where “members of the committee think,” to enlarge the report a bit. This is what we are doing.
Senator Busson: I agree with the approach that this should be what we heard and perhaps additional comments to stimulate further discussion with the whole Senate as the report lands in the Senate.
I would just throw out a suggestion on this part, if it isn’t in another part. I think we had a fairly fulsome discussion about the possibility of addressing an effective way to deal with special committees. Could we put just a note in here —
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Busson: — that this committee suggests that we discuss a way of getting special committees up and running when needed, something to that effect?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Busson: If it’s not available to us somewhere else, could we put it in this section as part of the report?
The Chair: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: Also, if it would make it easier, in 23 instead of saying “it was recommended,” we could say “it was heard,” and then we are saying what we heard rather than saying it was a recommendation.
The Chair: That’s a good point.
Senator Cordy: We could then leave it in.
The Chair: Perfect.
Senator Batters: I agree that’s a good point. The only thing is I think that Senator Omidvar said she doesn’t remember saying that. Should we keep energy and transport in, just because then others may look at that later and say, “What? When was that said? What was behind it?” Maybe there is something to show about that, but I’m just wondering if that particular comment should be taken out.
An Hon. Senator: It was in the testimony, though.
Senator Batters: What does it say about it?
An Hon. Senator: It says May 2, 2023 —
Senator Batters: I’m asking the analyst if she has the backup.
Senator Omidvar: It was an evolving conversation with four of my colleagues. I should say, regardless of whether we keep it in or keep it out, you manage the testimony, you raise it for whatever reason, that’s one thing; but I think we need to make some kind of conclusion, and from my point of view, the conclusion is that there is really no agreement at this point. Every suggestion was heard and we are documenting the suggestion. Every recommendation has a knock-on effect on other recommendations.
At this point, I can see there are vested interests in keeping things the way they are. Some people don’t want committees to be merged with other committees. Some committees want their mandate expanded. All of this has repercussions, so maybe we can make a concluding statement —
The Chair: I think that’s very wise.
Senator Omidvar: — about the lack of consensus.
The Chair: At least we can make this comment, and we can also say that it is approved that there’s a revision, some kind of change in the structure of the committee that proves it, but there’s a lot of the opinion on that and that choices will have to be made. Something very large, and who will make the change, we’ll see.
So with the reconciliation lens, nothing to add?
Senator Yussuff: I ask this mostly out of ignorance, so please excuse my ignorance. It’s a fairly comprehensive document. A lot of debate and discussion has gone into putting it together. Like all good work, at some point this has to go someplace. Political masters will have to look at it and groups will evaluate their desire to see this as a comprehensive review of the Senate structure and committee work and what have you.
My only worry in the context of our time is that if we’re simply spinning our wheels on the same thing that you’ve already gone through with very exhaustive discussion, I’m not sure what our value might be at the end of the day. It’s a good document, given the comprehensive discussion that has happened. The larger question is, where is this likely to go next, and more importantly, how can we contribute to that discussion? It’s not going to be here, to be totally frank.
As much as this might be a package that people may want to think of, it may not end up with the same political recognition when it goes someplace else. I’m trying to understand that, recognizing the important work has been done.
The Chair: The Rules Committee is the place where all those things are discussed. The Rules Committee is one of those committees that does not have an order of reference. We are the masters of what we want to do.
For instance, just to give you some comparison, in the House of Commons, there are rules for the Rules Committee. They review their Rules each year. They ask: Is there a rule you want to review? They review it and arrive at recommendations.
We are the committee that recommends changes in our Rules and procedure to the Senate as a whole. We have started this process of reviewing the committee work because there is a lot of frustration — some very small, but some bigger. It goes from one point where we cannot study important or actual things to the other extreme, which is that some committees only do legislative work and they don’t have time to concentrate on research.
There are a lot of issues that have been raised regarding the scheduling of committees, too many members, not enough members, representation and so forth. So we have started a review of our Rules and process, and the methodology we took was, first, to hear from the chair and deputy chair of each committee. Now we have this summary of evidence, and the question is, will we be able to arrive at some kind of a vision to propose? Do we want to work on that? Do we want to suggest some changes?
That’s why my puzzle was how to start the conversation. The way to start that conversation was, I thought, to go through the evidence so at least we’ll have a report on the evidence. If we cannot add any value, we will go to other pages — I think we may have other values to other points, but for the moment, I don’t know if it’s clarified for you, senator, the purpose of what we’re doing. We are the Rules Committee, and we can propose any changes on our Rules on this, if needed, or the process.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would suggest that we have a report that is on what we’ve heard, but the role of this committee is also to make recommendations. We may have a report that the majority of the members would agree with, and we could have dissidents, a minority of colleagues. But I believe we need to make recommendations to the chamber, and then the chamber will discuss. Otherwise, it will be, at the very least, the second time in a row that we table a report with no recommendations and then we discuss it in the chamber and it goes nowhere.
I do believe that we need to take the testimony and make recommendations on the key issues. It is our mandate to do so.
The Chair: This is the whole purpose of the exercise.
On page 5, the “Reconciliation Lens.” Do we leave it as it is for the report? Okay.
We have “Communication Between Chairs” on page 6. Some witnesses recommended that the chairs could meet to be able to exchange what we do in committees. Personally, I don’t agree with that recommendation. We could meet otherwise, and in each group, members of the committee report to their groups what they are doing. I don’t think we need a specific communication between the chairs of the committees. That is my opinion.
I agree with 27, so I will leave it as it is for me.
Senator Cordy: I agree with 27 too, but I think that we have to put both in just to report what we heard.
The Chair: Exactly. So we will leave it like that.
Senator Cordy: Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
The Chair: I won’t read what is there under “Orders of Reference,” but that was an interesting discovery about the functioning of committees, about how committees work with orders of reference. Some committees go and get a specific order of reference when they do specific studies, and other committees have a general order of reference and they do specific studies.
The only way I can reconcile those differences is that perhaps some committees want to travel and they need a specific order of reference for a specific study to travel. But maybe not.
Should we say something about that? Should it be clear that every committee should get an order of reference when they start a study? What do you want to add to this number 4?
Senator Ringuette: Again, I find that we’re mixing apples and oranges. You’re asking questions and you want us to make recommendations, but I don’t think that we’re at that phase.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Ringuette: The Senate as a whole should know and understand what each committee is working on. We refer legislation, for example. This issue of general reference is, in my point of view, kind of an additional definition of their mandate, and there should not be general motions. This is an absurdity.
We need for the Senate as a whole to understand what the committees are doing. Some members who are not on the committee might want to participate in those discussions and studies.
This issue of a general order of reference should not at all be presented to Senate. Not at all. This is a story for chaos. Then we question why there are some committees doing studies that are under the mandate of other committees.
By having an even playing field, this would clarify the situation for all senators. I would say, for example, that in recent weeks, the Senate Banking Committee has kind of decided that it would do a study on housing. My argument is that it’s not under the mandate of the Banking Committee. As far as I’m concerned, it’s under the mandate of Social Affairs. I’ve asked the chair of BANC to at least meet with the chair of SOCI to clarify the issue, and there is no meeting as of yet.
The committees have their mandates as are identified in the Rules, period. Then if they want to undertake a special study, they move forward with a motion in the Senate Chamber.
The Chair: So would you add some remarks in this report, or should we leave it like it is for the moment?
Senator Ringuette: Again, Madam Chair —
The Chair: Okay. I understand.
Senator Ringuette: My understanding is that we will submit what we heard and our next report will provide specific recommendations.
[Translation]
The Chair: “Membership,” at page 6, is a broad heading. Committee composition is included in “membership”.
[English]
It is the number of members per committee. Do we leave it as it is?
[Translation]
Yes, I understand. The same goes for “representation”.
[English]
Senator Batters: In paragraph 39, the second bullet speaks about the Energy and Environment Committee. It says that it lacks representation from Atlantic Canada. I think it’s appropriate to put “at times.”
Also, as I recall mentioning at that committee, previously that committee has also lacked representation at times from Western Canada. That was actually part of the reason that I got put on that committee; it was to deal with one particular study.
You might just put “at times” at the start of it, and then “lacks representation from Atlantic Canada and Western Canada,” or something like that.
Senator Wells: Senator Batters makes a good point. I recently went on that committee as the Atlantic, but I don’t wear that hat. I go there as someone who is interested in the topic.
If we start to carve and consider the different variations and categories that need to be, should be, might be considered for every committee, then we’d look at regional representation, gender, language, political affiliation. Perhaps we’d look at age, legislative experience, expertise. There are all kinds of things. And there is also interest. Sometimes there is not an interest to sit on a committee. Sometimes there is great interest by individuals to sit on a committee.
It’s good territory for discussion, but it’s not good territory for a recommendation or a mandate that would direct something like that.
Senator Kutcher: One thing that I didn’t see here — maybe this is not the right place, but I think it is — is unaffiliated senators and appointment to committees for unaffiliated senators. The process currently goes through the recognized groups, but we do have some unaffiliated senators.
I’d like to raise that, because I saw it was omitted from the report. I think we should grapple with how to deal with that issue.
The Chair: That’s a good point. Maybe we should have something in the report or at least question the position, the role and how we deal with unaffiliated senators. It can be great numbers at times. It could be eight unaffiliated senators that could exist.
Senator Busson: I don’t mean to wordsmith, but in 39, as I read it, it says “there are meaningful gaps.” To me, “meaningful” is a positive-sounding word. Could we say “significant”?
The Chair: Perfect.
Senator Busson: One of the concerns I have — it is more appropriate in another place — is around Monday meetings. It’s very difficult for people from the West Coast to attend Monday meetings, even in hybrid, because we’re usually in the air at about four o’clock in the afternoon.
The Chair: Expertise of members.
Senator Batters: Paragraph 45 says “. . . it can be beneficial to have members with constitutional and legal expertise serving on each committee . . . .” to ensure that these particular implications are considered.
There are only so many of us, so to say that not only would it be helpful if we sat on the Legal Committee, which is a very busy committee, but, “Can you also go on sit on these five committees?” I just find that to be a completely unworkable suggestion. Frankly, most bills that have significant constitutional and legal implications should be going, at least in part, to the Legal Committee. That’s why we sometimes just get a part of a bill referred to us, a part that has constitutional and legal implications, even if the main theme of the bill is at a different committee.
The Chair: Do you want to change something?
Senator Batters: Well, perhaps there could be a part added.
The Chair: At the end?
Senator Batters: Yes, in 47. Part of the comment that I made earlier is there, but just add in that there are only so many senators with this type of expertise, and that could be unworkable.
The Chair: Perfect. Moving to “Meeting Schedule.”
Senator Black: The very last line, to allow for “committee meetings.” I think it just clarifies. It says “meetings.” I’m wordsmithing.
The Chair: Which paragraph?
Senator Black: Its 48. To allow for “committee meetings.”
The Chair: Perfect. On the Monday meetings on page 9, do you have other comments or do you think it’s okay?
Senator Batters: Paragraph 52 would be the point to make that. I believe that I had made the comment that we had not heard from either a current or former opposition leader or government leader with evidence as to why that could be an important tool to have for either the opposition or the government or both. If we’re going to talk about having a rule change, it’s at least important to note that we did not have that testimony.
The Chair: We will put that in. And “Tuesday Evening Meetings.”
Senator Batters: This applies in a few different parts, but when we’re talking about the possibility of having committee meetings during Senate sittings, I want to point out the difference. I don’t think we had testimony about this, but I would like for people to be aware of the significant difference that there is.
When they were setting up committees and the structure of the Senate and the House of Commons, a big factor in that was the deliberate choice the Senate made — I believe we heard testimony about this — that for the most part, Senate committees would sit when the Senate is not sitting, partly because of the lesser number of parliamentarians, partly because it was desired that there be more comprehensive, lengthier studies and time for committee study here than in the House of Commons. In the House of Commons, they are, of course, very consumed with getting re-elected and politics and all of those kinds of things. As a result, the House of Commons generally has much longer sitting hours during the week. In fact, if you just look at an average week, I think it’s something like 35 hours of House of Commons sitting time in a normal week. It’s 10 hours in a normal week for the Senate.
The House of Commons committees do commonly sit during times when the House of Commons is sitting. Of course, they have three times the number of members, or more at times when we have some vacancies. Also, there’s that deliberate choice that was made for the Senate to not be sitting.
I believe that it’s important. When the Senate Chamber is sitting, there are often important parts where, because we’ve studied a particular matter at a committee or because we may know something about it, it’s important that we be in there to hear and participant in that discussion in the chamber, as well as important times in committees. I think that is an important thing to keep in mind when there are comments made that we can sit when the Senate is sitting.
We already don’t sit a lot of hours, especially comparatively to the House of Commons. We shouldn’t make the comparison that the House of Commons does sit during committees. But that’s why; it was a deliberate choice that was made.
The Chair: We will add something along those lines.
Moving to “Wednesday Evening Meetings.”
Senator Batters: I have a brief point. I see the comment made that it was mentioned during the study that some committees that meet Wednesdays at 4:15 are occasionally delayed due to deferred votes. That word was changed from “often” to “occasionally,” which is good, because having sat on a Legal Committee on Wednesday at 4:15, I have to say that it’s actually fairly rare. I think that anybody who sits in that kind of a committee would know that the Wednesday issue is generally much less of an issue than a Tuesday evening meeting would be.
I don’t know if an additional comment needs to be made to draw that out a bit, but it would be very rare that a Wednesday would be interrupted by a sitting or a vote. Sometimes when it’s a vote, it’s just a matter of delaying it or having a bit of an adjournment in the committee meeting before a vote, and then the committee restarts afterwards.
The Chair: Frequency of meetings, which is on page 10 and 11. Are you okay with what is written there?
With the rotation of the schedule, this is also what we heard. Nothing to add on that?
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s very focused, but I remember one witness who suggested that the rotation be made on the basis of the duration of a Parliament. I don’t see that we have highlighted this, and I believe that is important.
The Chair: We’ll add a remark on that.
Page 12, we have “Additional Meeting Times.”
Senator Batters: Just a brief comment about paragraph 69, where it says, “. . . used for important business and provides some flexibility in senators’ rigid schedules.” I believe I also mentioned the opportunity for preparation, to have that two-hour break, which might be your only two-hour time frame during the day when you can actually prepare for, perhaps, a speech later that night or something like that. Maybe add that comment in as well about flexibility and opportunity for preparation. It doesn’t have to be committee, but speeches or something like that.
Senator Cordy: I agree with you.
Senator Busson: I’m looking at paragraph 67. It talks about the recommendation to be raised that the two-hour dinner break be considered for Tuesday evening meetings. My name is beside that. I don’t know how that got misconstrued or if I misspoke, but I don’t agree with the two-hour break on Tuesdays. It makes me crazy to waste that amount of time, if you could take my name off of that. Thank you.
The Chair: Next are “Workload” and “Distribution of Legislative Work.” Are we okay with that? It goes from page 12 to 13.
And then “Creation of Subcommittees to Distribute Work.” That’s also fine?
Next is “Vacancies in the Senate.”
Senator Cordy: It has changed.
The Chair: I know. That’s why everyone is on their phone. There are five new senators.
“Committee Business” is on page 14, and “Travel.”
Senator Black: I’m looking at number 85. Did somebody suggest that non-members be permitted to travel? I don’t recollect that. I’m not saying they didn’t. But who would we ever want to send who would be non-members?
The Chair: Besides the clerks?
Ms. Virgint: It was recommended to ensure regional representation sometimes on committee travel to allow for an additional member to go.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator Batters: I think we were meaning that if a committee was going to Nova Scotia or something like that and other Nova Scotian senators may want to go.
Senator Black: I read it differently. I apologize. I thought, oh, somebody off the street. Thank you.
The Chair: Now we have “Witness Selection,” pages 14 to 15.
Senator Kutcher: One of the things we could do is flesh it out a bit in terms of how to think about accessing independent expert witnesses as opposed to trying to get witnesses who support a particular perspective.
There are organizations in Canada, such as the Council of Canadian Academies, the Royal Society, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, et cetera, that are replete with the best and brightest in this country, yet I don’t think they’re ever asked for witnesses. They could certainly do a great job of providing witnesses in many different areas. I think we need to reflect that there are pools of experts in Canada that traditionally have not been asked to provide witnesses. I think we do Canadians a disservice if we constantly go back to the old way of choosing witnesses instead of using the very best independent people. I would like to see something like that acknowledged here.
The other thing is that we did talk about and had some witness testimony on fact checking of witnesses, and I think we need to have that here. We have had witnesses at committees who have not been reliable in terms of their facts. I think there needs to be a mechanism whereby committee members can fact check what the witness is saying. It’s not prejudicial to the witness. They can still have their commentary, but there needs to be a process. Maybe, to spare embarrassment to the witness, that happens after the session. There needs to be a process where a committee member can ask for an independent fact check. Maybe the Library of Parliament can do that or perhaps some other organization, but I think we need that process.
The Chair: We will add that. I agree with the fact that some associations should be asked to provide witnesses, such as in economics, at least. There are all sorts of associations.
Senator Cordy: On 91, could we say, “linguistic and regional diversity”? Those of us from the East Coast often feel that there aren’t many witnesses from Atlantic Canada. It’s easy to get people from Ontario and Quebec because it’s close, but the east and west are often left out.
The Chair: On page 15 we have “Support for Witnesses.”
Senator Busson: Can we somehow diplomatically make reference to the fact that a lot of these witnesses are here voluntarily and of their own accord, and that every effort should be made to make this a pleasant, if not neutral, experience and that it’s not the same kind of rhetoric we might use in a court of law or in an adversarial situation?
Senator Yussuff: I think that’s a very good point. I don’t know how you control that at the committee, when some members may not want to hear what the witnesses say.
Senator Busson: That’s the whole reason why I think it should be there, because then whoever is running the meeting could raise that as a reminder.
Senator Yussuff: Yes, of course.
The Chair: To be polite, yes.
Senator Yussuff: To the point that Senator Kutcher raised earlier, I think that often people say things at committee, and obviously the facts that they are sometimes providing to the committee are very relevant to the subject matter that’s being discussed. But more often than not, I hear erroneous facts being given to committee, and it becomes a rule of, you know, that’s the wisdom, and we should accept that.
I think it’s unfortunate. You don’t want to embarrass the witness, but maybe there’s a way that we could say, “Listen, whatever is going to be said here, know that it’s going to be fact checked,” so people can be spared the embarrassment, in a context in which they made comments that we know, based on knowledge and experience, are not necessarily true.
The Chair: Page 16, “Hybrid Meetings and Videoconference.” Is that okay?
Do we have any change on “Reports”? No.
If not, let’s turn to page 17, which is “ External Legal Counsel” and “Effectiveness of Committee Work.”
Finally, on page 18, we have “Government Responses” and “Communication.” Do you have any comments you would like to add?
Senator Kutcher: Thank you again. On “Government Responses,” when I read this, it seemed like it might just be a one-and-done situation. I just want to put it on the table — I don’t know how best to put this here — that it doesn’t need to be a one-and-done.
For example, in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, or POFO, as both Senator Busson and Senator Cordy know, we received a government response to a committee report that we did, and the government response was inadequate, inaccurate and problematic. So, POFO is studying the government’s response in order to respond to it, and I would suggest that if that happens with other committees, perhaps the committee could consider whether or not they want to just accept the response and move on, or whether they really want to address the government’s response. I’m just raising that here, that it might be something the committees could consider.
The Chair: Okay.
Nothing to add on “Communications”?
Senator Busson: I have a comment on “Communications,” and maybe it’s for another phase in this four-phase report, but often during the tabling of reports, it’s just a name and a number, and it’s mentioned in the Senate. I’m wondering if — and I understand that chairs of committees can give a short overview if they would like to, like two or three paragraphs — could we bring that up as perhaps something that we could discuss later?
I know in a lot of cases, people don’t have the opportunity to read the whole report, and in some cases, they might not even realize the context of the report without a short two-paragraph executive summary of what is in the report. Can we discuss that further?
The Chair: In this report, we’ll add that you suggest that sometimes we should do that, and the chair should maybe —
Senator Busson: — give some context.
The Chair: — give some context.
Senator Batters: On that point, having been on the Subcommittee on Communications for quite some time after it was first formed, that was actually supposed to be something that the Communications Directorate assisted committees with. Because it has been long recognized that we have excellent studies and we need to really make sure that they receive the necessary publicity so the public can see all of these great things we’re doing — executive summaries and things like that — and make sure that, as some witnesses talked about, committees are not just having all their releases in Ottawa, but instead, in communities where certain topics are very important to those communities.
Those were the types of things that each committee was supposed to be assigned, and I think they still are, but I just don’t see those people maybe as visibly as I used to. Each committee was supposed to be assigned a Communications person from the Communications Directorate to help them when they were doing these types of studies.
The Chair: We have looked over our document. Would you like to have the appendix included in the report or not?
Senator Batters: If we include it, then I would like to go through it, as we have, but perhaps, given the time, we should save that for next week.
The Chair: You would like to go through the appendix. Okay.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, if I may, the appendix is really a summary of the individual meetings, and we do still have one more to come — one still to be drafted and one more appearance to come — so, two more sections would be added to that as well. It might make more sense to do it when we have the whole package together ready to be reviewed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It was very helpful. In a future discussion, we will go on to determine how we’re going to approach the structure and mandates of the committee. So, for the moment, the meeting is over. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)