THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 21, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 10:04 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I’m Diane Bellemare, a senator from Quebec and the chair of this committee.
We’ll start by introducing the people around the table, beginning on my right.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Yussuff: Senator Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, we’re delighted to be joined by the chair of a very important Senate committee, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Welcome, Senator Mockler. Thank you for joining us this morning and for agreeing to answer our questions. I know that you often have scheduling conflicts with this committee. We’re pleased and fortunate to have you with us.
Today, we’re finishing up with testimonies on Senate committees. As you know, we’re reviewing the structure and mandates of committees. Before proposing ways to improve efficiency, we wanted to hear from the chairs—and former chairs, where possible—of the various Senate committees.
The National Finance Committee is very important. It goes back a long way in the history of the Senate. This meeting is the last in our series of testimonies.
As always, we’ll begin with remarks from our witness, Senator Mockler. We’ll then open the floor to questions.
The floor is yours, Senator Mockler.
The Honourable Senator Percy Mockler, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on National Finance: Thank you. I must confess that I’m a bit nervous. My spouse said to me this weekend, “Percy, you and the rules!”
[English]
My wife is certainly listening, and I’ll try to make sure I touch the subject matters, Madam Chair, of the mandate of your committee.
[Translation]
Thank you for inviting me, Madam Chair, friends and colleagues. I apologize for being the last to appear before your committee to talk about this study. As you know, at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, we have an enormous workload and obligations with regard to the government’s financial cycle.
Nevertheless, I’ve been keeping up with your study. I had a chance to read the blues to get an idea of your work and where you’re headed. I want to congratulate you.
[English]
Good morning to all committee members, and I thank you for your hard work. I will touch on eight different issues. I appear before you today as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I have also consulted with members of the committee, as well as all the members of the steering committee, for feedback that I will raise and share with you, the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
[Translation]
As chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance since 2017, I want to share some observations that might help your committee study the specific structure of the Senate committees, while taking into account the role, responsibilities and mandate of the National Finance Committee.
Since my appointment to the Senate in 2008, I’ve had the opportunity to sit on a number of other committees, including the Official Languages Committee; the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee; and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.
[English]
The main objectives for work of the National Finance Committee will always be the importance of transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability in order to better enhance and determine performance indicators from each department, agencies and corporations of the Government of Canada.
So I’m here to answer the committee’s questions, share with you eight different points and tell you about my experience on National Finance. We have certain points that we will need to raise and, hopefully, we’ll be able to raise them within the question-and-answer period.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, honourable senators, we must first keep in mind the specific mandate of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to ensure that it can study any matter concerning the government’s budget forecast, in general, and other financial matters, as specified in Standing Order 12-7(5).
[English]
Our second point is regarding regional representation on languages across Canada and First Nations. I want to touch on this.
We should have a more balanced composition representing the diversity of Canada — regions, official languages, Indigenous — would allow us to better represent all Canadians from coast to coast to coast with the National Finance Committee.
I will now touch on a third point, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
This is our committee’s time slot. Those are long days for committee members, especially Wednesdays. A number of senators who sit on the Standing Committee on National Finance are also members of the Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy.
[English]
It is difficult to report to the Senate the next day — on Thursday — when reports are adopted so late on Wednesday evening, especially when there is a deadline to meet in order to engage a debate in the Senate. It puts a lot of pressure in the chamber for our debates on the particular Finance reports and to officially respect the mandate of the committee.
Another point that is very important are the orders of reference. For orders of reference for work on government bills, National Finance should always be allowed to sit when the Senate is in session to meet the tight deadlines imposed on it and the operation of the Senate on government bills.
[Translation]
The fifth point concerns hybrid meetings.
[English]
The workplace in 2023 is different. There is no doubt in my mind that it will continue in the future. We believe the Senate should give more thought to hybrid meetings. It is the new normal in our society. The infrastructure is there. Hybrid is increasingly becoming the standard in private and public companies, as well as in some parliamentary institutions around the world.
Last week, Madam Chair and honourable senators, I did discuss this new approach to work, and I was surprised that different levels of government and the private sector — such as health services, forestry, agriculture and services in general to the public — are being discussed and they see opportunities with hybrid meetings.
The sixth point that we at National Finance want to bring to your attention is more notice for bill studies, the limited time available to study certain important bills, restrictions that are often imposed by the government, especially bills with financial implications in billions and billions of dollars. Committee members feel restricted in the effectiveness of their work and the serious attention that should be given to certain bills.
[Translation]
I think that the limited time available to fulfill our responsibility to study bills means that Canadians don’t always see the full implications of federal budget bills.
[English]
Our seventh point is about getting answers from government officials. It is important to remind witnesses that government departments and agencies should be able to respond to questions requested by parliamentarians or have staff present to answer those questions, especially in response to their budget that is requested.
[Translation]
I want to emphasize the need to obtain written responses within a reasonable time frame, especially when the committee must submit a report very quickly, with constraints imposed.
[English]
I want to share with the committee that the National Finance Committee sent a letter to the Minister of Finance in 2022 because there was a delay of two months for written replies. In my book, as chair, it is unacceptable. Two months for written replies. The committee had to table its report on Supplementary Estimates (B) without having received the answers from the department.
I want to share with you, Madam Chair, that at a point in time, it is incumbent upon us at National Finance. No minister, no bill. Now I am considering the following: No answer, no bill.
As I conclude, looking into the future, we will also need to be mindful of orders of reference on private members’ bills. This will also impact the work of our committee going forward, and there is no doubt in my mind that it will impact the time frame on our mandate to deliver our reports in the Senate in a reasonable time.
[Translation]
That said, thank you for listening. If I can’t answer some of your questions, I’ll send you a written response, certainly no later than two months from now.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mockler.
Having also served on the Finance Committee for a number of years, I find all your points quite relevant. They shed considerable light on the challenges when it comes to improving efficiency. All these points are significant. You raised points that others did not.
Before turning the floor over to the next speaker, I want to clarify your last point regarding the need for an order of reference for Senate private members’ bills or House of Commons bills.
What would you like to see in these orders of reference to help your committee study the bills?
Senator Mockler: Madam Chair, I believe that an order of reference must always be measured and focused, in keeping with the committee’s mandate.
The Chair: In terms of the order of reference from the Senate, the Senate should further specify what it wants to see in the committee’s report once a bill has been studied.
Senator Mockler: This shows the need for a committee that can look at private bills that reach the Senate, to determine which committee will have this more specific responsibility.
The Chair: You’re talking about the order of reference from the Senate to the committee.
Senator Mockler: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you for the clarification.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you for appearing and giving that opening statement. I’ve always admired the way you’ve handled yourself as a colleague and chair of the committee, often in challenging times. Often, the Finance Committee can be very challenging. I know I’m not the only one who has that opinion.
I wanted to ask you about the special status that Finance has in our convention where the chair is a member of the opposition and not of the government. Could you talk a little bit about that, how it relates to the steering committee that you have with other groups and are there special challenges because of that special status that Finance has?
Senator Mockler: That’s a very good question, senator. If you look at the performance of the committee, it’s because we have good members.
It’s questionable if we could be better if we had real representation from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Western Canada and the North.
When we look at the mandate of the committee, there is a time where we need to modernize, and we need to look at the way government works so that bridge should be the same. At the end of the day, it is to give Canadians a Polaroid shot and also enabling Canadians to see what we do have in our mandate so that we can enhance or better the quality of lives of Canadians.
Senator Wells: Thank you. You mentioned the necessity for geographical representation, and I think all of us would agree with that. There is also greater fractionalization in the Senate now with numerous groups. Obviously, linguistic aspects are important as well.
How far can we go down the road of making sure there is representation — not just from political groups or caucuses, but groups within the chamber, linguistics, geographical, perhaps gender and all the other things that we recognize are important — without a committee having 20 members?
Senator Mockler: I believe when we chatted about membership, it’s important and incumbent that we do have regional representation. On the linguistic issue, it is important, and also with First Nations.
I want to share with you that lately, we have areas where there is no representation. At times, because of the region, senators will meet me in the hallway and they ask who represents us in Western Canada or other regions that we don’t have. That’s very pertinent.
When I look at the different groups, it doesn’t matter where we sit. When we sit in the chamber, we ensure that we have the same mandate. The mandate is to represent our regions and to represent Canada. The leadership of all the groups will need to be knitted a little bit more tightly so that when we have a vacancy at National Finance, it can be addressed rapidly.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Good morning, Senator Mockler. I’m happy to see you here as a witness.
My question concerns the language aspect, given that you were—and I think still are—a long-time member of the Official Languages Committee. As a francophone, I’ve always noticed that, when we study reports in committees, we receive two stacks of papers. One stack is in French and the other is in English. When we look at the papers, and we know that everyone sees that the English is fine. However, when we look at the French part, because it helps us work faster, we sometimes notice—not because the translation is bad—odd wording. When the wording is translated into French, it doesn’t match the true meaning. We address the wording in the committees, but it’s always a cumbersome process.
I spoke to a few colleagues about this issue. They came up with the following idea. When studying the report, why not place the versions side by side, as we do with legislation and bills? That way, it’s easier to compare them and see immediately that the translation doesn’t work. This means less work, since us francophones must handle both versions.
What do you think of this proposal? If we put the French and English reports side by side on one sheet of paper, to make it easier for us to spot issues, it would be less cumbersome. In addition, when we approve a report in the committees, I take it for granted that everyone around the table approves the English version. It’s fine and it covers everything that happened. However, there’s never any question of approving the French version. Isn’t there a way to do this?
Senator Mockler: Senator Mégie, you made two good points. In my brief 39-year career, as my spouse puts it, when I’m asked to speak in public, I always prepare my speeches, notes or documents in both French and English. I’ve also found that, when I receive documents from the Library of Parliament, the translation is either not accurate or a little unclear.
Perhaps we should spend more time on this. I support your approach, which is how I always do things. My notes are always in French and English. Those are the two official languages and we must respect Canada’s official languages.
The Chair: Thank you. You provided good testimony. I also want to point out that, when we receive any type of notice or response from the Speaker of the Senate regarding a given topic, we always obtain both the English and French versions. As a francophone, I find this approach effective.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you for being here today, Senator Mockler. I’m glad that we were able to make this meeting work given the very busy times that I know you have at the Senate Finance Committee. In fact, your committee generally meets during the same time frame as our Rules Committee.
That’s a large part of the reason we hadn’t been able to have you here yet, but I’m glad you are here today, because many of the topics we have been discussing over the last several months are issues that directly impact the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance since it’s one of the Senate’s busiest committees. One of those issues is that there has been much talk about the idea that Senate committees should have the ability to sit during times when the Senate Chamber is sitting.
Of course, the National Finance Committee is a prime example of a committee that frequently sits when the Senate is sitting. That is because they receive the permission to do so if they are dealing with budget bills, estimates and things like that. Those are important matters, of course, that need to be discussed. As a result, they receive that permission.
First of all, could you tell us about how it is determined when it could be a case where you would need to sit when the Senate is sitting and how that generally goes?
Senator Mockler: Thank you, Senator Batters. Those points are very relevant to our sittings. It is mainly because of the mandate that we have from the Senate of Canada on the finances of the government.
I have to share with you that it is almost an ongoing discussion, especially when you look at Finance on Wednesday afternoons. That is good for the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy as well as National Finance to have some of the members sitting around the table. I do not want to mention the members’ names. Some members sitting on National Finance are also members of Banking. That augurs well when you look at the financial affairs of Canada, because they see both sides of the equation of a dollar.
That said, we will need to redefine or there are some changes that have to be brought forward. I could not, with all due respect, tell you exactly how to proceed. It is an element both in National Finance and in steering, because of the different groups that we have in the Senate, that we can say how we should proceed and here is what we can bring to senators’ attention. I have been here since 2008 and it is the first time — I applaud the exercise that you are doing in Rules, because it has not happened too often. Today, it is a different world. It has to be taken into context, from coast to coast to coast, in consideration of our regions, of our languages and also of First Nations.
Senator Batters: In your remarks, you spoke about hybrid sitting, and you mentioned that you have been sitting as a parliamentarian for 39 years. Is that right?
Senator Mockler: At the provincial level, it is 24 and it is 15 here. It was 24 in the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Batters: That is very commendable and a great deal of service.
When you were speaking about hybrid, then, over the number of those decades that you have given to public service as a parliamentarian, there are certainly advantages — as I am sure you have seen — in committee hearings and dealings with witnesses, in particular, in a hybrid fashion. That has been something that has been used frequently. I know when you have Finance Committee meetings, you have many witnesses in a meeting. I am sure that is a great benefit, as it is in some of the committees that I sit on.
But wouldn’t you agree, given those 39 years as a parliamentarian, that sometimes hybrid, especially as parliamentarians sitting around a table — the collegiality that you are able to build with other colleagues, the back-and-forth that you have with a witness when you are in person as compared to just on a screen many miles away and perhaps even with internet problems — and wouldn’t you concede that there is sometimes something lost with that hybrid system?
Senator Mockler: Last week, when I had telephone conversations with different sectors of the economy — talking to bank managers who were looking at hybrid, university students and the leaders of tomorrow — I have to admit to you, Senator Batters, I notice that my age group doesn’t understand what hybrid is but the new leaders of tomorrow, the bracket of 35-50 years of age who want to become parliamentarians, tell me that hybrid is a process that is and should be considered more.
When I talk to people of my age group, they will say, “Percy, we still want to sit down with you” or “We still want to sit down with the public servants and/or ministers, MLAs, MPs, premiers or prime ministers.” That is why I said in my comments that we should be mindful of that. Leaders in the past were dealing with certain things, but with the new economies that we have and new tools of communication that we have, we should be mindful of that.
Senator Batters: Many with whom I speak are even younger people — people of a different generation. When they are only hybrid, they miss that collegiality and think there is something lost if you are only questioning or in a meeting all of the time over screens. There is something that can be lost even among us as parliamentarians.
Senator Mockler: I appreciate that comment. That is why I have said, and when I looked at hybrid, let’s be mindful going forward.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. It seems that the hybrid format has advantages and disadvantages. However, you think that it could be used more often.
[English]
Senator Cordy: My concerns are the same ones that Senator Batters raised.
First of all, we will talk about times for meetings. Before you started to speak, one question I had down was this: Shouldn’t National Finance have a blanket rule that you can meet when you have to meet and not go through discussions and getting everyone together every time to say, yes, National Finance can meet? We know there are times of the year that finance bills are coming through, budgets and year-end — all of those kinds of things. We know that National Finance cannot do their work in the allotted time period.
How do we go about doing this? Would it be a sessional order and then make it into a rule? How do you see that happening? I agree with you. We go through this several times a year with the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and it is not that the National Finance Committee wants to be meeting every day and night, but that is the reality of the job when you are on that committee.
How do we make it easier?
Senator Mockler: More collaboration with the mandates that we receive from the Senate — the mandate that we have — and more cooperation, like no minister, no bill.
Steering wrote a letter to Minister Freeland and pinpointed that we were still waiting for answers from two months ago, and it is the Department of Finance. I don’t want to point the finger and say the blame.
That is why we’re saying that if there is “no minister, no bill,” there should be consideration. We have to share that with the government. We don’t have a blanket rule. I agree with you, Senator Cordy. There will probably be a time that we will have to tighten the vice and say, “No answer, no bill.”
Senator Cordy: It worked when we started a number of years ago. I happened to be here when we started. The ministers were not available, and it was “no minister, no bill.” It then became a part of every committee doing that.
When we look at giving the general reference to the Rules Committee so that they can meet without getting special requests from the Senate, would that be a sessional order that we should do at the start of every session and then work toward making it part of the rules that the Finance Committee can sit when necessary, with a few parameters thrown in, legalese stuff? How do we do that?
I think that is very important instead of every time the Finance Committee has to meet at year-end or budget time or for special bills that we are having to go through the Senate to, again, get permission for the Finance Committee to meet.
Senator Mockler: Collectively, with the experience that all of us around the table have and also knowing the role of parliamentarians, especially in the upper chamber, it is an issue that I was thinking that the Rules and Procedures Committee could address or put a committee in place to do such a study in order to address the issue. It is not normal, not acceptable, that three, four or five weeks before, we are being mortgaged all of our time.
Senator Cordy, when I looked at the last 10 years, we have had over 450 meetings and 2,758 witnesses. When I look at the first session of the Forty-fourth Parliament that we are in today, we have had 79 meetings and 732 witnesses. I believe that that period of time — we have it this week — we will be mandated with Supplementary Estimates (B). When you look at the time frame that we have before we table the report before Christmas, I have to tell you that the time frame is very short.
Senator Cordy: I agree with the comments that you have made about hybrid meetings. It is 2023, and we are close to the same age, so I get it about the younger people rather than our age. Two of my daughters work three days from home and two days in the office. It had been five days. I have spoken at conferences in Africa, Montreal, Toronto and across Canada. I think that we have to look at it seriously and not just have a blanket no, that we cannot have hybrid meetings.
When I did get COVID, it was when there was hybrid, so I was able to take part in the meetings from home. I would not have been able, nor should I have gotten on an airplane to fly to Ottawa, when I had COVID.
I think there are circumstances where people are at home recovering from surgery or whatever reason, or a spouse who is not well or whatever family emergency that is there, who could take part via hybrid but who can’t. It is 2023, almost 2024. I agree with your comments.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Senator Mockler, having served for 10 years on the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I completely agree with your eight comments this morning. I support them. I would even say that they should be given special consideration by our committee.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance certainly has an extremely demanding mandate, as does the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. These two committees have the largest mandates and the most work.
I have two questions for you today. Over the past few years, the number of senators per committee has gone up. For example, there used to be 12 senators on the National Finance Committee, and today I believe that there are 15 senators.
In your opinion, should there still be 15 senators per committee? Should we go back to 12 committee members to give senators the opportunity to ask more questions or to expand on their questions? Time is limited. As chair, you have to stop at a certain point. Given the numbers, time is even more limited. When 15 senators ask questions in a two-hour period, it’s different from when there are 12 senators. The 12-senator scenario gives the chair a bit more flexibility, and gives the senators the chance to expand on their questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
Senator Mockler: Thank you very much, Senator Ringuette. We believe that if the committee were more representative of our regions, if everyone worked with the information provided by the Library of Parliament — its work is exceptional. Sometimes we’ll wonder about the translation of a word, but its work is exceptional. I’m aware that senators talk to each other and phone each other. In keeping with our mandate, some want to look at this or that program, while others will want to look at infrastructure; some want to monitor the money being transferred to the provinces in the area of health, others want to see what investments the government is making, et cetera.
We haven’t dealt with the issue of adding a slot or having two and a half or three hours rather than two hours. The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament might want to consider this approach to give the committee the tools it needs. Sometimes, especially during the period from late November to December, departments come in, and we have a lot of questions, but time doesn’t allow it, Senator Ringuette. Especially when it comes to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I think that’s a factor that should be considered.
Senator Ringuette: I didn’t get the answer regarding 12 or 15 members on the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, but you touched on my second question. The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance never has enough time in its schedule. You’re a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, which meets on Monday evenings. We’re well aware of the distances you and I have to drive to get to Ottawa.
Can the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament propose that committees that sit on Mondays be able to sit on Wednesday evenings and that the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be able to have a time slot on Tuesday mornings from 8 to 11 a.m.? That would give the committee three hours, and the flexibility to get another three-hour slot, if needed, on Wednesday evenings.
So, this scenario would remove the requirement for committees to sit on Monday evenings and give committees, like National Finance, which never has enough time to do everything, flexibility. Instead of having only four hours a week to do the work, we’d have the possibility of having two times three hours, so six hours.
I’m just asking this question, but I’d like to have the time to explain my proposal in more detail. However, I would appreciate your comments.
Senator Mockler: I don’t want to venture, Madam Chair, into the flextime scheme and compare it right away to the various committees. I think it should be a matter of course that we consider the committee’s mandate.
Currently, it’s not acceptable: we have two vacant seats on the Finance Committee that have not yet been filled and we’ve never had the full participation of our 15 members, we’ve always had 12. There are two vacant positions and I believe we’ve already even sent a letter to the whips, the leaders of the various groups, to bring the issue of schedules to their attention. However, we haven’t received any particular response other than in person, I’ve been told that the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament will be conducting a study and that we have to wait.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Of course, in our deliberations we’ll have to look at this topic, if we want to come up with a proposal that takes into account most of the wishes we’ve heard.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Mockler, for being here. I do not mean to embarrass you, but I have been a member of your committee at different times — covering for colleagues — and the care you take with how the committee operates and allowing members to participate, I have been truly impressed with your leadership. You show a remarkable sense of constantly good judgment but equal attentiveness to what is happening with the committee. There is a dynamic that, unless you are sitting in the front, quite often you do not get to see. I have been truly impressed. I realize that given your public service experience, we could all benefit from the way in which your committee functions.
I recognize that the Finance Committee is a unique committee in terms of its mandate and responsibility but equally the objective in studying very important legislation around the finances of the nation. The issue that you talk about on regional representation is interesting. I am wondering why we couldn’t make the rules such that regional representation — with the other diversities — would be a standing requisition that leaders would have to consider when they are appointing to a committee. It is left to good judgment, and sometimes good judgment works and sometimes it doesn’t.
I do not see anything wrong with suggesting that this should be the way we function. Obviously, we are here as senators, and we do represent regions and the country. However, to get those factors together — gender or First Nations representation — is always a challenge. But I think it should be in the rules that clearly this should be a requirement and people should consider this when they are making appointments to the committee.
The second point I wanted to touch on — because I think this has to do with participation — is that the committees do benefit from the myriad of witnesses who come, bring their perspectives and tell their stories for us to consider. I do agree that the world has changed. I always love my daughter for the fact that she always makes me look stupid with my telephone. When I cannot figure something out, I just give it to her and she immediately tells me what I am doing wrong. I am always struck with wondering where she learned that.
The world has changed. Like it or not, I do believe that hybrid is the reality of the new world we are living in. There are a number of people from the North who may want to participate in Finance Committee hearings, but the travel to come to Ottawa for 20 minutes of participation is just not fair, in my view. I do not see anything wrong with them being given the option to do that. If they weren’t, it would diminish the committee’s ability to examine their testimony but, equally, to hear from them. So I do agree with that, and I’m hoping, at some point, that we could have this conversation.
I recognize there is a difference between committees — witnesses testifying and individual Senate members and their responsibility to the work. We need to find a balance. I do agree with you on that.
The last thing I want to touch on — this is very important in the context of the Finance Committee — is “no minister, no bill.” I also believe that answers to questions that are put before officials from government are quite challenging for me to understand. They are not prepared, sometimes, to answer some of the questions that are put to them. The fact that they cannot give a proper answer in a timely way is critical. It is critical for the committee to be informed about the decision they are about to make that is based on good judgment and reasonableness. The officials should be prepared. After all, it is their responsibility to tell us. If they can’t, why are we accepting testimonies that are not fully to our expectations?
I will leave that with you to comment upon. Thank you.
Senator Mockler: Senator Yussuff, you have raised some of the most important items that we have discussed among ourselves as members of the Finance Committee. Yes, there are some new norms out there. We need to be mindful of that in order to modernize our institutions. That is part of it, but we also need to be very relative. We have a seniors population that is high in Canada. That group of people want to see face-to-face, like Senator Batters commented. Yes, with your daughter and my daughter, there is no doubt that, going forward, they have different ways. I see some younger people here who are my daughter’s age — 36 — and believe me, if we don’t or cannot address the issues from the future, those issues will address us.
Senator Busson: I appreciate this opportunity and your taking the time to come to speak with us with your exceptional background and experience. Thank you.
Many of my colleagues have asked the questions I wanted to ask. However, I was struck by some of the words you used when you talked about the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance having an enormous workload. I had perceived that. I have never been on the committee, but I had perceived that. When you think about it, the Finance Committee is a subject-matter committee, but it encompasses every issue and every region constantly. Therefore, I am totally sympathetic to how pressing and urgent it is that you are able to get your work done. You also made a very poignant comment about your Wednesday night meetings at 6:45 p.m. for a committee that has to produce timely reports.
There were a number of suggestions around how we might fix that with more time on Tuesdays and permission to sit when the Senate is sitting.
In a perfect world, knowing the pressures that you have, if you could do it, how would you have your committee sit?
Senator Mockler: First, it would be making sure that we have representation across Canada.
Second, in order for us to table our report on Thursday, it’s impossible to produce it when we finish most of the time at almost nine o’clock on Wednesday night. Our clerks and our professionals cannot help put the report in place to be tabled on Thursday, so that has to be revisited.
By looking at another time slot, this would give us a better tool to address that. When we sent a letter to Minister Freeland, she did answer. In fact, she called me to address it.
There has been some improvement, but I’m looking at the total picture. We need to address it so that we have the answers and can put it in our report if we make observations or amendments to the report, or suggest amendments to the report. With the Rules Committee mandate, those issues can be addressed.
I’ve learned in my 39 years as a parliamentarian that people don’t care who you are until they know what you care for. You look at the time slot, and I look at the $500 billion budget, depending. It’s not only the budget, but there are also the officers of Parliament, like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the PBO. Those are all part of the reports we receive, and we need to be mindful of relating it to the budget that impacts Canadians.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have two quick questions. In the rules, currently, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance provides for 12 members and the only committees where there are 15 members are the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament and the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Do you think you could do the same job with nine members?
Senator Mockler: Personally, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the steering committee and when you look at the scope of the mandate, it would be difficult to have only nine members and have fair representation from across the country.
The Chair: Thank you for that response. I know that the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance works very hard and I know that the senators who sit on this committee also participate in other committees.
Here’s a little statistical question: in your opinion, when you participate in the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, what is the equivalent in terms of tasks, for a senator? In other words, I’ll put my question in a way that’s easier to understand: when we say that a senator sits on two committees, it’s pretty ideal to be able to make a contribution and have added value on both committees. So, what is the equivalent of the complete task compared to someone who sits on the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance? Does that senator have the equivalent of two committees or one and a half? I’d like to hear from you on that.
Senator Mockler: When you look at the number of hours in our committee, there are many. In the first session of the 44th Parliament, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance held 79 meetings and received 732 witnesses. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology held 74 meetings and received 341 witnesses; the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications held 69 meetings and received 328 witnesses. When we look at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, it held 78 meetings and received 326 witnesses.
On the Finance Committee, the reason why it’s important to have at least 12 senators to represent Canada much more effectively and take the time to look at programs that impact Canadians is that we’re here to defend our regions. That’s the importance of seeing the twelve-member committees that will and should represent and continue to represent Canada’s regions and Canada’s North.
The Chair: So on that note, if there are no further questions, it remains for me to thank you, Senator Mockler, for that very pertinent participation. You’ve given us answers to the questions we’ve been asking. Now, over the next few meetings, we’ll try to take stock of everything that’s been raised.
Thank you very much for your participation, it was necessary.
So with that, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)