THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 9, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:36 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules and, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(c), to consider the orders and practices of the Senate and the privileges of Parliament.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
It’s April 9. We’re continuing our study on the structure and mandates of committees. We’ll proceed in two stages today. First, we’ll study rule 12-7(2), which concerns the number of members on committees. At 10:30 a.m., we’ll study a draft committee meeting schedule.
First, I would like the senators to introduce themselves.
I’m Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters from Saskatchewan, deputy chair of the committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you all for being here today.
By way of introduction, you have all received a document prepared by the Library of Parliament. I would like to thank them for this brief. Although it’s short, it does quite a good job of summarizing the issues regarding the number of senators per committee.
We’ll have a discussion in relation to... Yes?
Senator Batters: Sorry.
[English]
I just wanted to say that, for the second hour, I know it had been proposed that we deal with the issue of a potential draft committee meeting schedule, but we have not received that meeting schedule yet. I don’t know if it’s something that might be coming to us today, but I think we would have a better ability to actually have a robust discussion about it and ask questions to both Senator Ringuette and to the soon-to-be Clerk of the Senate if we had that schedule in front of us. Then, perhaps, we could deal with that schedule at the next meeting.
We’ve been talking about that particular issue for quite some time, but we don’t have the schedule, so it’s not something —
The Chair: The schedule will be tabled today. It’s very easy to understand, because we already had a meeting on scheduling and Ms. Shaila Anwar explained to us, in a multicolour way, the scheduling of committees. So we had a meeting on that issue.
At that meeting, if you recall, Senator Ringuette was designing some plans, and she tabled them with us very quickly, but it was not easy to understand exactly what she meant. She worked with Shaila Anwar, and they came up with a draft, coloured in the same way.
It’s not something very new that will be tabled. We could have tabled it before, but we decided to table it in the meeting to have all the explanations at the same time.
Senator Batters: In order for us to be able to know which committees are proposed to be held at different times, I would like the ability to go back and look at how those committees have dealt with different issues over time, whether they be government bills, studies or things like that — the hours they have met — in order to have a better ability to question both Senator Ringuette and Ms. Anwar.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments. For the moment, we’ll go to the first part of the meeting, which is the number of senators per committee — and you received a draft from the library. In the next part, we’ll do what was agreed on; we will be discussing the schedule with Senator Ringuette and Ms. Anwar. It was agreed that we would do that today, so I don’t see why we wouldn’t do that today.
Senator Batters: When it was agreed upon, I would have expected that we would have actually had the proposed schedule to be able to look at, but we don’t have it.
The Chair: Sorry for that. You will receive it when we’ll start. I think you’ll see there’s nothing very timely to have it before. You’ll see it, and we’ll do as we thought we would do it.
We’ll start with the number of senators per committee. You received a summary from the library of what it is actually.
[Translation]
As you know, the Senate can regularly adopt sessional orders to amend the Rules when it comes to the number of senators per committee. To sum up the situation briefly, rules 12-3(1) and (2) stipulate that committees are generally composed of 12 members.
The membership of the committees is included in the brief distributed by our analysts. You can see that two committees are made up of 15 senators. These committees are more administrative or procedural.
Our committee is made up of 15 senators, along with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, commonly known as CIBA. Most committees are made up of 12 senators, with the exception of the added committees. These committees are not as old as the others and usually sit on Mondays. The committees, composed of nine senators, are the following: the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages; the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights; the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence; and the Committee of Selection.
During our discussions, when we heard testimony from the senators on the committees, we took note of some comments stating that our standard number of 12 may be too high. Some said that a 12-member committee makes it harder to ask the witnesses questions and to conduct an ongoing analysis than with a committee made up of nine senators.
Some agreed with this comment. However, they pointed out that having 12 senators means more regional representation, gender diversity, and so on, whereas having nine senators leaves less leeway.
The number of senators per committee has varied considerably over time. Some years, there have been as many as 50 senators on a committee. However, at the time, there were also far fewer committees. The number of 12 was gradually established in the 1980s through practice.
In 2002, as you know, the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament reviewed the Rules. At the time, it was proposed that the committees be made up of six to nine senators. The committee discussed this proposal. However, it was recommended that committees have between 6 and 12 members, and that a specific number be determined for each committee at the start of the session.
In the end, this proposal was rejected and we have the Rules as you know them.
Today, as part of our work, we need to address this issue. Do we want this rule to stay the same? Do we want a smaller or variable number? It’s our decision. There are implications. Right now, with 12, when four committees are sitting at the same time, 48 senators are involved in the meetings. If we had nine senators per committee, we could have five committees meeting at the same time and 45 senators involved. That’s considerably less than with 12 senators per committee.
If the facilities, translation and related services are available, with nine members per committee, one more committee could sit at the same time.
Today, I propose that we discuss this issue. We can make a decision in due course. As far as numbers are concerned, we have heard from senators. We may or may not want to hear from other witnesses. The goal of this activity is to report back to the Senate if we amend this rule. Otherwise, it’s pointless to table a report. However, we could do so if we change this rule.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a question about context. Are you asking us this question today so that, if we prepare a report — for example, on changing the number of members — it will be sent to the Senate and implemented in the current Parliament or next Parliament?
The Chair: No, it would be for the next one. Our proposed changes to the committee structure and mandates can’t be implemented during this session. They’ll need to be implemented in the next session.
Senator Saint-Germain: Good. It may be too early to consider this question. We don’t know the configuration of the next Parliament after an election. In addition, we need to add a criterion that hasn’t been addressed. This criterion is to maintain the principle of proportionality in the allocation of seats to the various caucuses and recognized groups. In my opinion, this factor is vital to ensure fairness. I suggest that we add this factor if we proceed. Thank you.
The Chair: Are any other hands raised?
[English]
Senator Yussuff: I think this is an interesting exercise, but there are a couple of things. I have noticed, in the short time I’ve been here — there are others who have more experience to share — that there is a strong desire, for various reasons, regarding some committees people want to be on. I’ve seen that and have certainly experienced it. We need to take that into consideration. Granted, it is a political place, and people, of course, feel those committees are doing things, they get a lot of the spotlight and I would prefer to be there.
There are other issues we have to sometimes struggle with. The country is quite diverse, and the views that come from different places inform the work of the committees as they take into consideration perceptions and realities that regions might experience that are not the norms in bigger metropolitan areas.
Our Senate today is also far more reflective of the diversity and gender makeup of our country. How do we bring that along to committees? The dynamic improves on committees when you have a broad representation of the country — peoples and ethnicity — on the committees. The discussion is different. My experience, as a Brown man who lives in Toronto, carries me in regard to my work that I do but, equally, how I judge and see things. I realize that the issues have to be dealt with on their own merits, but the reality is that I do have a perspective that informs me based upon my background and my experiences. Similarly, women bring some of those great qualities to the debate that we have on committees on issues we are dealing with.
I think it’s critical that, even though the rules do not specifically allow for us to have gender balance, at some point, in a casual recommendation to our colleagues in leadership who make those decisions, this is an ongoing thing we have to struggle with. Committees should try to reflect, as best we can, the diversity and the gender makeup of our country, because I think that improves the quality of debate and discussion. I’ve been fortunate to benefit from that and learn quite a bit as a result of committees on which I’m serving and hearing the diverse opinions that come to and before those committees.
I know these numbers can be looked at in an abstract context, but it’s important that, as we reflect, we also reflect on those numbers — I’ll use one committee, Banking, as an example. It is a sought-after committee; a lot of people want to be on the Banking Committee for a variety of reasons. I don’t know what the mystery is, but it’s okay; I’m on it too. There’s a lot of debate that goes on there. There are a lot of important bills.
Some would probably argue it is the same with National Finance. I know the committee is full — almost 12 members. I’m sure if we had 15 members, there would be 15 members on that committee.
It speaks to some excitement people think that committee generates and they would like to be part of it.
Some of the discussions we have, especially on issues that shape the country and bills that come to the committee, have some very different interpretations if you’re from that region of the country. That debate is usually informed by the people on the committee.
I would just add that to the discussion and whatever our recommendations is. Gender and ethnicity are critical parts of our considerations. Granted, we can’t mandate that, but as an observation, we should add in whatever our recommendations might be.
The Chair: I’m hearing that Banking is very popular. In the past, it was Social Affairs; everyone wanted to be on SOCI. There’s a question of people, the population of senators, the qualifications, the skills and the experience of the senators. Their interests have an impact on their preferences to sit on a particular committee.
When we’ll be addressing the issue of a possible future agenda, I had in mind that, at some point in time, because it has been mentioned many times in the testimony we heard, we should look at how we populate our committees and how we take account of groups of gender, regions, races — all sorts of diversity criteria — within the way we populate our committees.
This issue of the numbers is different from how we populate. There’s a rule that exists in our Rules that says most of the committees must be 12. Actually, this rule is not respected for some committees, at least not Official Languages — three that are thematic committees. For Selection Committee, it has other types of considerations.
But for the thematic committees, there is a discrepancy between those that are 12 and those that are 9. There’s no reasoning, except that those that are nine meet on Monday. We always said that it’s sometimes difficult to have people come in at the right time on Mondays, because people usually travel on Mondays.
Because of that, I thought we could have that discussion, but if we’re not ready, we can postpone it — but we won’t postpone it, because we are doing our round table now. But I heard some say that it might be too early. I don’t think it’s too early, because it’s a different kind of issue than how we populate. It has some links, because when you have 9 members, you have more dilemmas than when you have 12. You have to choose between the numbers and the criteria of representation.
From my point of view, when I read the literature on the optimal numbers of people in committee — because there’s literature that exists on that, which I consulted when I was doing my bill on the Bank of Canada for the monetary policy committee — this literature is neutral; it has nothing to do with the subject. But I’ve seen literature that was quoted in economics regarding the optimal numbers for committees on public policy issues. Usually, the optimal number for questions of efficiency is around six to nine; it’s not above nine. Apparently, the problem with a number bigger than nine is that you have the free riders: those who sit on the committee but don’t do their work. If you want to be more efficient and have more participation, the study apparently says that. But people have to be committed.
Senator Busson: As you were talking, it reminded me that, with nine as an optimum number, we all recognize that quorum would be less. At the same time, as you said, with a number like nine, you would have people who were more committed. If there were an instance where someone has to find a substitute to keep the number at nine, there would be more people available to offer to be that substitute as well.
As you talked about optimum numbers, I think nine tends to be a number that’s much more manageable from an administrative practice standpoint.
The Chair: If I may say, there’s another rule for the quorum. It’s not in relation to the full membership. The quorum is 4, no matter if you have 9 or 12 members.
Senator Omidvar: I appreciate this discussion. It’s an important one.
I will just speak as someone who has been a member of a committee with 12 senators, which I now chair. That is Social Affairs. It is extremely difficult to give senators fair time all around. Second rounds are almost impossible. So while you might get spread, you don’t get depth. I see Senator Cordy is agreeing with me, because she sits on that committee with me. It is extremely difficult to satisfy everyone. Regardless of what you try to do, senators are sometimes quite upset that they did not get their fair time.
I think with nine, that would be a distinct advantage. This question of committee members should also be tied to proportionality. We can’t just change the numbers without also addressing proportionality.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly agree. Proportionality is the only way to keep moving forward. As we are speaking, I am recalling my 12 years on the National Finance Committee, where we were 12, and with the range of issues to be studied there and the range of programs and witnesses, the limited time for each senator to seek answers is very frustrating.
I understand you want to be part of a committee with regard to the numbers, but if, once you are there, you are limited in what you can seek for answers to move forward, from my perspective, I find it tips the scale in favour of fewer members on a committee in regard to efficiency and satisfaction of the work that you can accomplish on a committee.
For now, that is my comment.
Senator Cordy: I agree with others who have said — I’m not sure what the optimum number was. You gave us statistics on it, but it sounded pretty good.
The reality is that people who are not on the committee can come and join the committee if it is something that is of interest to them, but on the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, the chair has tried everything under the sun to make sure that everybody gets equal time and that you have each got so many minutes, and we go around, but the reality is you cannot follow up the way that you might. You cannot delve into it. If you get an answer that is not quite sufficient, then it is the next person’s turn. That is just the reality. That is not anybody’s fault; that is just the reality of what it is.
I really like the idea of having nine, and senators can sit in if they are interested in the issue that the committee happens to be discussing. I would like to have us make some of these decisions before the end of June and bringing it into the Senate, because we have been talking about committees and changing — Senator Busson, Senator Forest-Niesing and I were on a working group, and we spent a lot of time over the summer on meetings. Other people around this table — and probably many other committees — have sat around trying to determine the best ways forward.
I think we should come with the best ways forward before the end of June.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: First of all, chair, I would like to get a copy of the study that you brought up about the optimum number of senators, because if we are going to have a look at that and decide whether that is something that is applicable or, for certain reasons, maybe is not applicable to the Senate, it would be helpful to have that.
I am glad that you brought up the issue of quorum, because, yes, regardless of the size of a Senate committee, it is four senators. I recently heard — and it is kind of shocking — that there are certain smaller committees, which are routinely having trouble meeting quorum, which I am stunned about, because we come from a very small caucus now, but there is one very large caucus. I don’t know how many members they have on those committees, but that is a big concern.
Another issue I want to raise is, does this Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament Committee need to be 15 members? That is a very large committee, and I am not sure. There have been times since I have been on this committee in the last 10 or 11 years that it has been 12, I believe. Maybe that was a sessional order or something like that, but there are times when I wonder if this particular committee needs to be 15, because, again, senators need to add that to their very busy committee schedule that they already may have, especially those of us in smaller groups.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I was looking at the numbers. There should be 105 of us in total in the Senate — let’s say 100. We should also see what happens when we divide that number by the total number of committees. For example, with 18, what happens? I did a quick calculation, and it works out to approximately 5.83 members. You talked about having between six and nine members. With six members, we certainly won’t have regional representation. However, nine members might constitute a middle ground, since it’s between 6 and 12. It would also give people the opportunity to sit on two or three committees. I think that nine is the magic number that could accommodate everyone. Of course, I haven’t calculated the regional representations, the representations of our groups, because there are four groups. That’s all.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to make three points.
The first one is that my understanding is not that you want all committees to be populated by nine members. You would respect the issues related to or the specific situation of the Audit and Oversight Committee —
Senator Ringuette: Exactly.
Senator Saint-Germain: — and the Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators Committee. And by the way, there are six members currently. It is true that normally there are five, but currently there are six. That is the first point, and thank you for your answer.
Second, do you see any link with the study that this committee has undertaken with regard to the mandate of all Senate committees and eventual possible mergers or creation of additional committees? Do you see that there is a link on this?
My last point is to the point of Senator Batters regarding quorum in committees. You are right, senator, that sometimes it is very difficult to have quorum. As far as I know, by chance, the largest group would provide the majority of the members, then, who are there, but we are very respectful of the representation. For instance, I chair a subcommittee, and I insist that we sit when all groups are represented. This is one of the issues. We do not like to consider that quorum is only formed by one group. We would like all groups to contribute, and it is an issue — I’m not blaming anyone. With small groups, it is an issue for the members to be able to attend all committees, so I think that this nuance is important.
[Translation]
The Chair: In terms of your question, I can see the link between the number of senators per committee and the number of committees. Obviously, more senators on a committee and more committees mean more work for each senator and less opportunity for each senator to do their homework.
[English]
Personally, I have been on four committees at some point in the Senate, and four big committees — Banking, Finance, Environment, and Modernization of the Senate — and I can tell you that it was very difficult to be efficient in all of those committees and to read all of what I had to read. There is a link, absolutely.
Also, as I said, apparently, the work in committee, per se, is not necessarily directly in relation to the numbers. It looks like it is not.
Senator Yussuff: I am trying to be realistic and practical at the same time, which I think is an impossible task.
You have the vast majority, committees that are currently 12 members, and unless I am strange in how this is going to be accomplished, I don’t know how you go from 12 to 9, because you are going to displace 3 people. Given that people have a stronger desire to serve on some committees and not on others, I think it would be problematic to think we are going to get the leaders. We can make any recommendation we want here, but I’m trying to be realistic. There are only a small number of committees that are less than 12 — that have 9 members. You might succeed in bringing them up rather than trying to reduce the numbers from 12 to 9, because you have so many committees that are currently 12 members right now.
At some point, as much as we are all talking practically here, you are going to have to convince leaders, who are going to have to go convince their groups, that this is a good thing for the Senate.
I will put my other hat on. In my previous life, I chaired a board of 90 people. People said it was complete madness. That was the structure. I used to chair committees of 30 or 40 people, but that was the structure. You make it work the best that you can. You have the best discussions. It falls into the hands of the chair, and sometimes the chair is even and sometimes the chair is not even, as an autocratic organization, a democratic organization.
My point is that we are a political organization in the Senate, and some committees work very efficiently. I have been on committees with 12 members that are not effective and efficient. There is a mixed bag here.
I am just making an observation that given we only have a small number of committees that have nine members, I think the likelihood of bringing up them up and then back down to nine will be a huge challenge for us. I am just cautioning us in terms of the recommendation and direction we might go in.
The Chair: If I may just contextualize your comments, they are very important, but the problem is the fact that we are not always 105 senators in the Senate. Sometimes we are around 90 senators in the Senate, and to have 12 members per committee makes it harder to populate those committees.
The second point I want to make is to not misunderstand this change in rules. We will not take away the privilege of some senators because this will not apply in this session. If this applies, it will apply in the new Parliament.
Senator Ringuette: It would be for the next Parliament.
The Chair: The next Parliament, that’s right.
Senator Batters: What would be foreseen for all of these committees? There are a few with 15 members. Would it be proposed that they also go down to 9 potentially or that they go down to 12? That has happened before. What is the thinking on that? When it is discussed about proportionality, for those members who have raised that issue, what is the proposed proportionality for that?
The Chair: Personally — it is my own opinion — I have thought about it for a while, and I thought there is a good reason why CIBA and the Rules Committee are 15. We touch on issues that are really important for the structure of the Senate, so to have a big group could be useful for CIBA and for the Rules Committee.
There is also a counter-argument that would say it would be more efficient for little groups and then to propose to the Senate to have this discussion in the Senate as a whole, so I am a bit neutral, but personally, with a big group in the Rules Committee, it is workable for the moment. I was looking more to thematic committees, the discrepancy between the thematic committees.
[Translation]
For example, the official languages, human rights and national security and defence committees have nine members, while the other committees have 12. I think that an injustice or inequity is at play here. It isn’t equal.
[English]
There is no reason why it is unequal. I know that in times when the Senate is not a full house, it is difficult to have 12 members, and it would be difficult at this point in time I know for those committees to have 12 members, especially because they sit on Monday.
This is a discussion we have. We do not have to decide today. Absolutely not. Today it is a general discussion, and then we can revisit this discussion when we talk about other issues concerning rule 12-7. When we talk about numbers of committees, maybe there will be other issues that could be raised on this particular one.
Senator Batters: Another issue on CIBA, for example — which I served on for many years, including as deputy chair so I know that it can be problematic — is that CIBA has many subcommittees, which are also quite onerous as far as meeting, and particularly for those of us in smaller groups, you then have to make sure that you have the necessary people on all of those different subcommittees as well. It is much different than the Rules Committee in that Rules does not have that, aside from steering. CIBA has all of those different subcommittees with quorum requirements and they deal with important matters as well.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think that this is a good point. When we look at all the committees, it’s obvious that we have different types of committees. The administrative committees, such as the Committee on Audit and Oversight, have three senators and two external members. We aren’t playing with the number of members on this committee. The same applies to the Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators. These are select committees.
I would like to see the same number for all subject matter committees. I believe that the more administrative committees, such as the internal economy and scrutiny of regulations committees, should be excluded from this rule. The scrutiny of regulations committee could be considered a subject matter committee. We’ll make the decision. However, we certainly wouldn’t touch the Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators or the Committee on Audit and Oversight. The other committees are mainly subject matter committees that study legislation and conduct research. Are there any other comments?
[English]
Senator Woo: This is a very helpful conversation and I think that we are getting close to a consensus. I hope that we can land on a decision sooner rather than later and certainly well in time before we recess for the summer.
My own sense is that the nine number is quite compelling. It does not have to be uniform across all of the committees, as you have articulated. I hope that in one of our future meetings soon we can look at something concrete that we can discuss and perhaps come to a decision on.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good. I think that the majority consensus is that we should make a change to this rule, or at least make a decision on the number of senators per committee before June.
We can propose different scenarios for the rule in question and revisit the topic later to report on it as it stands.
[English]
Senator Batters: Just because we have only been speaking about this for a half an hour today, it might be a little early to declare a consensus on it, especially when I have just asked some questions here that I have not received answers to. For example, what would the proportionality be? That is obviously a very important part of decreasing size on committees for someone in the official opposition caucus. Yes, I think we need to have more discussion and some thought about that before we come to a “consensus.”
Senator Woo: On proportionality, it is a well-established rule now for many sessions that it is the relative size of the groups that should be reflected in the memberships of the committees. There should be no disagreement on that. It is our practice. We have done it for many sessions now, and this is not something that needs to be further debated.
Senator Batters: On that point then, do you round up or round down? If you just looked at strict division of numbers, would the opposition who currently might have two senators on a committee be reduced to one because of numbers declining over the next little while? Of course, hopefully there will be a day very soon where those numbers will go in the other direction. In the meantime, I think it is important not to relegate the official opposition to a situation where we only have a minimal number of senators. That is an important point.
Senator Woo: I do not speak for Senator Saint-Germain, but, first of all, math is math and we can do the calculations. Proportionality will be the guide. On rounding up and rounding down, traditionally this has been something for the leaders to work out. It is worked out in total, not just for a single committee. This is not something that this group needs to decide at the moment.
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Woo, I certainly concur with you.
I want to insist, though, on the fact that we have this other study regarding the mandate of committees, and I would very much appreciate that we take this into account when we report to the Senate. Otherwise, this is becoming theoretical and it is not very pragmatic. I concur with my colleague Senator Yussuff that we need to be very pragmatic in our decision making, so I recommend that we make the link.
[Translation]
The Chair: All this is taken into account.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I certainly concur with what was said.
I would also like to state that as a senator who was here prior to 2016, in a duopoly situation, most of the time, proportionality — even at that time — was the setting. You cannot move away from that.
However many groups there are going to be, you cannot move from proportionality. It is not even an issue that we should be discussing.
The Chair: Especially at the beginning of a session because it is also linked with the equality of senators. If we want each senator to have a task and sit on an equal number of committees, then proportionality enables that too. So it has to be done. Otherwise, you have some groups in which senators sit on four or five committees and others where you have senators in a group where senators sit only on one committee. That is not good equality or consideration either.
On that issue, if there are no other comments, we will return to that. It is certain that it is linked with the number of committees and the mandate of each committee, which we will begin to discuss in the coming weeks.
[Translation]
We’ll be continuing our deliberations and discussions on a topic of interest. This interest was piqued by Ms. Anwar’s multi-coloured documents on the committee schedule. This presentation inspired Senator Ringuette, who took the opportunity to play with the colours, with Ms. Anwar, in order to propose a scenario. I’ll let them share it with you.
By way of introduction, we have a proposed schedule for a pilot project that might resolve a number of small issues at the same time. It may create other issues, but we’ll see. The purpose of today’s activity is to hear Senator Ringuette and Ms. Anwar’s presentation on this proposal, which, by the way, doesn’t need to be debated in the Senate.
[English]
It will not have to be discussed in the Senate as a whole because apparently the scheduling is not something that is debated in the Senate as a whole.
I would ask our two witnesses, when they present this table to explain to us — especially Ms. Anwar — how the process of the scheduling of committees is done. How does she contribute — if she does? Are there administrative rules concerning this? This way, we’ll be able to contextualize the proposition in front of us.
I give the floor to you.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Colleagues, it’s quite different to end up on this side of the table in this committee. However, I believe that my years in the Senate and the results of our meetings with committee chairs and deputy chairs, whom we consulted over the past two years, are certainly a source of inspiration for the issue under consideration.
I would like to thank Ms. Anwar.
[English]
If not for Shaila’s extreme competency in regard to schedule and the human resources that are available from the Senate at what time — all of that had to be taken into consideration.
What you have in front of you is probably the sixth iteration of our discussion. I think it speaks for itself.
As you know, there hasn’t been a review of committee mandates — which is what you’re undertaking right now — and the scheduling of these committee meetings. I’ve been in the Senate for 21 years, and that has not happened. What has happened, though, is the addition of new committees, with the caveat that they sit on Mondays to do their work. We had special committees that had to sit on Mondays. Sitting on Mondays — and we had witnesses — is very prohibitive for many senators because of the travelling that, for the vast majority of them, entails them to be here. It’s even more so now with travelling impediments because of airline agendas and cancellations.
Further to Monday, I would say that some very interesting committees occur on Mondays. I know that many senators would like the opportunity to participate, either as members or as participants at the committee. However, because it’s on Monday, it’s prohibitive.
We also have to consider the House of Commons — the Monday committees can sit at the same time as the House of Commons is sitting. It’s not the baseline for the Senate. As a general principle, I totally agree that Senate committees should not be sitting at the same time as the Senate.
Therefore, what you have in front of you is what I see as a pilot project that we could start next September and that could be reviewed after a certain period of time — let’s say May 2025 — with regard to the efficiency it has brought. The clerks of committees keep extensive data with regard to committee work, so we could be looking at the pros and cons and lessons learned. At the time when we do a review, we can see if we want to keep moving in the direction that the pilot has indicated is more efficient, return to the current agenda that we have or tinker with either one in order to gain efficiency and the most satisfaction for our colleagues who are sitting on these committees.
Essentially, what you have in front of you is that we would have no more Senate standing committee meetings on Mondays. We would have no more Senate standing committees on Tuesday evening — so no more cancelling at the last minute because the Senate is sitting on Tuesday. There would be no more cancelling meetings and — most offensively — cancelling the witnesses that the committees have retained to do their work. Honestly, I think that’s undignified from a Senate perspective.
In this agenda, the three committees that have the most work, which are the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, would keep their two meetings per week at two hours. The Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament would keep their one two-hour meeting, and the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs would keep their one one-hour committee meeting.
I think freeing up Mondays and — most importantly — Tuesdays provides not only senators and the Senate but the Senate Administration with more flexibility. If some committees have urgent issues that require additional hours to do their work in order to report to the Senate, that flex time would be available. The resources — the interpretation and staffing of these committees — would also be available because what we are proposing would provide some efficiencies not only for senators but for the Senate Administration of committees.
With regard to your question about process, Madam Chair, maybe Shaila, who is the expert on that, could provide some comments.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, members of the committee.
[Translation]
To answer your question about who decides the schedule, the Senate Administrative Rules already contain a provision that specifies that the clerk assistant — me — and the director of committees must work with the leaders to organize a schedule for committees that meet regularly.
[English]
Although the Senate Administrative Rules, or SARs, has the leaders, it has been delegated to the whips. Therefore, I work with the whips to establish the schedule. I would say that prior to the pandemic, that was a very pro forma annual exercise of approving the long-standing schedule that we’ve had — maybe with minor tweaks. I would say the most frequent interaction I have with the whips is when a committee wants to sit outside its time slot. They submit the request to me through their clerk, and I submit that request to the whips, and the whips give their yes or no, depending on the circumstances.
The other area where I also assist with the schedule is with respect to the Monday committees. This is the famous rule 12-18(2) that you’ve also discussed — Mondays after a break week. That requires committees that normally sit on Mondays to get permission from the Senate or from the Leader of the Government or Leader of the Opposition. That is also a process that administratively works through me.
Typically, that’s how we’ve managed the schedule the entire time I’ve been in committees. There have been some periods of time where the decisions were taken by the Senate, but that was in line with the provisions for hybrid meetings. Since we’re no longer having hybrid meetings, it has gone back to the normal process as set out in the SARs.
I do consult, also very importantly, with our service providers, in particular, multimedia services with the House of Commons. The Senate has a service-level agreement for not only the number of events but also how many hours per day and how much staff are assigned to support our meetings. We have a partnership agreement with the Translation Bureau that manages, again, the number of services we receive from both interpretation and translation. We’ve talked about that before.
[Translation]
Regarding Tuesday evenings, I must note that the internal economy committee has asked us to find ways to work more efficiently.
This evening, we have three committee meetings scheduled. We haven’t yet received the agenda for the Senate sitting. However, it’s anyone’s guess whether the Senate will sit after 6 p.m. This situation comes up often. I must ensure that the services are available and that the employees are there, the clerks must summon the witnesses and we wait. We must often cancel at the last minute. These services have been booked and there isn’t any way to recover them. The same applies to witness costs. That’s something to consider.
[English]
Apart from that, I’m left-handed and right brained; colours work well for me. I know they’re not for everybody, but I’m happy to answer questions about the colour coding. Essentially, this schedule, as Senator Ringuette pointed out, addresses two issues that were raised as part of your study on inviting all the chairs, namely, the Monday committees and the Tuesday evening committees. We were able to squeeze in some extra time by using a start time of 8 a.m., which gives an extra hour. Other than that, there are a few pinch points that I’ll discuss with the services, depending on what this committee decides. This reasonably fits in with the service levels that we’ve been accustomed to receiving from our services.
I’m happy to explain the different colour coding. It’s more for me to be able to keep track. Essentially, the light blue represents the Monday committees. You can quickly see where they’ve been displaced. The dark blue are committees that previously had two meetings for two hours each. They’ve now been changed to one meeting for three hours. The reds are for the committees that meet on alternating weeks and share a two-hour time slot. The light purple is for committees that will maintain two meetings for two hours per week. The one change was to move Finance’s Wednesday evening slot to the Wednesday noon slot. Unfortunately for Senator Mockler, who is retiring this week — he has asked for this for many years — he won’t be able to benefit from it, but we can tell him that will be his legacy.
I said pink, but it’s actually more a lighter purple or maroon-ish colour on this printout. Those are for the committees that meet once a week for two hours or less, namely, CIBA, Rules and Veterans. That’s the colour-coding system.
The darker grey blocks are where the Monday and Tuesday night committees used to be, to give you an idea. As Senator Ringuette explained, if a committee needs extra time, those could be two possibilities.
To give you an idea, our current schedule has about 72 hours’ worth of committee meetings through the week, from Monday to Thursday afternoon. This schedule has 60 hours. That means eight hours less overall. Again, in terms of services and resources, it gives us a little extra breathing room. It would be difficult to try to find an extra time slot from the Tuesday through Thursday afternoon window. It’s really tight, with the exception of Tuesday evenings. We can see what we can do.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, would you like to add anything?
[English]
Senator Ringuette: Yes. Along with this, you should have received committee activities of the last two years. For instance, if you look at the years 2023 to 2024 that we just went through, I did a quick analysis. If you look at the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, it had 31 meetings for a total of 48 hours. Are you seeing this?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: If that committee would have sat for three hours, period, instead of meeting for 31 times it would have met for 16 times to achieve the same number of hours of meeting. Right there, on a visual, you can see the efficiency for both senators and staff on these committees. I did the calculation for most of the committees. If you want to ask about specific ones, I’d be more than happy to answer.
We will do our utmost to answer questions. Essentially, I would like senators to bring this private proposal to all their groups in the next week and for us to have a further discussion next week at our Rules meeting. Again, I reiterate that this would be a pilot project that we could start in September.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for this much-appreciated presentation. I’m sure that there will be many questions. I briefly saw some of your calculations. I can see that there aren’t really any committees that have a negative impact. It’s quite marginal.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to congratulate Senator Ringuette for launching this analysis, and to thank Ms. Anwar for helping to make it a reality.
I greatly appreciate the comment at the beginning. The comment specified that joint committee meetings with the House of Commons that can be held in hybrid mode have been scheduled for Mondays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. This would allow some senators to attend the meetings from home, in certain cases.
I believe, especially when it comes to the data on page 7, that this will be better for all senators, from the largest to the smaller groups. This will also save the Senate money.
I’m just wondering about the two committees that would sit in part while the Senate is sitting, on an alternating basis. We’re talking about Wednesdays from 1:30 p.m. — so from 2 p.m. for me — to 3:30 p.m., with the Committee on Audit and Oversight and the Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. Is there any place where the members of these committees wouldn’t have to miss Senate sittings?
Ms. Anwar: We discussed this situation with the committee members, because both have very few. Basically, it was the only time. The members also sit on other committees. It’s difficult to schedule them, for example, for Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning, because they have other committee meetings. We could perhaps, once again, schedule them for Tuesday evening, which might sometimes be less busy if the Senate ends a little earlier, or perhaps after a certain point, if the sitting ends at 6 p.m. or later... The agenda may already have moved on to other business. It might be less important for the senators to stay.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have one last quick question. I also gather that the subcommittees of the internal economy committee would meet during the week when the committee isn’t sitting. Is that right?
Ms. Anwar: Yes. I have been able to negotiate with the interpretation services to find another time slot for the subcommittees on Wednesdays at noon. These meetings aren’t televised, so we need fewer resources. We can use Wednesdays at noon and the weeks when the internal economy committee doesn’t meet.
Senator Saint-Germain: Good answer. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Batters: Sorry; I think I missed that last point. Were you saying that the subcommittees of CIBA would be meeting on Wednesday at noon under this schedule?
Ms. Anwar: They could.
Senator Batters: Because that would directly conflict with the National Finance Committee, which is quite a large committee.
There are several things that I see in this right off the bat. First of all, the ISG has two different slots of two hours each: Tuesday from 11:30 to 1:30 p.m. and Wednesday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. I’m assuming that is actually what happens and not a typo. If that’s the case, then the ISG’s meeting on Wednesday would directly overlap — and they’re the biggest group by far — with the National Finance Committee, which also has a big membership of 12 senators. As well, the National Finance Committee would be set to start during Conservative national caucus, which goes until noon, not until 11:00 or anything like that, generally every week. Of course, it has previously been the case with other parties’ caucuses at that same time too. Who is to say what will happen in the future, but currently, for the Conservative national caucus, certainly there’s an overlap there.
That would mean that for those of us who sit in the Conservative national caucus, here’s a potential Wednesday: 8 a.m., regional caucus; 9:30 until noon, national caucus. If you’re on National Finance, that would go from 11:30. You would have to leave national caucus early and go to National Finance until 1:30. Then the Senate sits. Then you would have either Legal Committee, Foreign Affairs, Social Affairs, Banking — all big committees — sitting from 4:15 until 6:15 or 7:15. Then Rules Committee would be moved to sit for a two‑hour spot on Wednesday night, from 6:45 to 8:45. You potentially could be sitting, without a break of any kind, for 13 hours of meetings straight on Wednesday.
Another thing I notice is that on Thursdays, you have three very big committees sitting at the same time: CIBA, with 15 members; Legal and Social Affairs both have 12 and may have overlapping members. Those would now be sitting at the same time. I see that the Veterans Affairs Committee would also be sitting during part of that.
Is it okay to have four televised meetings sitting at the same time for the Senate? I see that has happened on several occasions here. I understood it was a problem now. For example, on Thursdays, currently Legal is forced to sit starting at 11:45 a.m., not at 11:30, which backs us up right until the Senate start time. Is that no longer a problem or is it something we could change now?
Ms. Anwar: To address the first question about caucuses, for the purposes of what I was asked to do, other than blocking out the time for caucuses, I didn’t take into account that there’s overlap. There is certainly an overlap with the ISG caucus. I’m not sure when the Tory national caucus ends. Typically, I think it’s by noon. However, this is a request for that 11:30 to 1:30 slot that the chair has made on a number of occasions. I’m putting it out there, but, of course, these are things that would have to be looked at and probably tweaked and negotiated.
With respect to the Wednesdays, they are certainly long days, but it’s about an hour longer than what it is currently. I think now we have three committees that sit until 8:45, and sometimes they go longer than that. It’s a choice. It helps to alleviate the Monday committee issue. Again, it’s a choice for senators to make.
With respect to Thursdays, with CIBA and LCJC, SOCI, CIBA normally has the earlier slot. However, this schedule tries to keep everybody starting and ending at the same time. If this is agreed to, I’ll have to go back to the services and see what tweaks are necessary. It’s quite possible that at that point they say that they need a 15-minute slack for some of these committees. I haven’t yet had those precise conversations with the services, so it is possible. With VEAC, Veterans Affairs, because they only sit for an hour, I have the ability to slide them back and forth a little bit.
I should have mentioned this before, but for the purposes of doing this schedule, I certainly did not analyze at all cross-membership issues and things like that. That’s something that would have to happen at a later date. For the blocks themselves, for example, I took the Monday committee and put it in the next available slot. It could be that we have to move around the specific committees once everybody has had a chance to look at it. There certainly will be conflicts for memberships. I think that’s also partially why Senator Ringuette is proposing September, because that will allow moving around of the memberships to accommodate conflicts that may be in this schedule. At least for the purposes of this exercise, it shows you what time blocks are available. We can always do some adjustment to which committee sits where.
Senator Batters: I was interested because there were several points where three or four committees start and end at the same time. I didn’t think that was actually possible, broadcast-wise or translation-wise. That’s interesting.
The other major comment I have — and I would certainly benefit with additional time to look at this, since we have several pages here, including some detailed statistics that we just got right before the speakers started speaking today — is that now we’re going to have seven different Senate committees, which previously would sit for two hours, twice a week, and now would be relegated to once per week for three hours.
I would be curious to hear what some of the committee chairs, deputy chairs and members of those committees would think about that. For example, for a committee like Foreign Affairs, it might impact the types of witnesses they’re realistically able to hear from. I’m not sure. Obviously, they have considerable numbers of witnesses from around the world that they hear from, and if they’re designated to be in one particular slot every week rather than a late afternoon slot and a morning slot, I’m not sure how that would impact. That is something that I’d be curious to hear about.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to a previous comment about Wednesday, two hours for National Finance, I agree that your Conservative caucus meets until noon, probably, on Wednesday. There’s no reason why National Finance could not start at noon and be done at 2:00, when the Senate starts to sit. I believe that the ISG group meeting could be accommodated if we move forward with this proposal.
Senator Batters: There are two ISG caucus meetings per week. What’s the difference? Do they have them every single week? Is that something we need to factor into the schedule?
Senator Ringuette: Respectfully, Senator Batters, just like you have two caucus meetings — you have your Senate caucus meeting on Tuesday, probably, and you have your party caucus meeting on Wednesday morning. There are many issues to be discussed and different groups organize themselves as best suits their needs.
Senator Batters: Party caucuses. Okay.
Ms. Anwar: I would mention that the SARs also have a similar provision about the caucus meetings that the Clerk Assistant consult with the leaders — I don’t think there’s a time on it, but consult with the leaders about developing a caucus schedule. So the caucus schedule was developed in consultation with the leaders.
Senator MacDonald: I have a quick comment, looking at this breakdown. As a member of the steering committee on Foreign Affairs, I think I can assure you that this proposal is not going to be well-received, and with due cause. I’ll discuss this with my colleagues. I’m sure they will have a message for me to bring back to the table, and I will. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: That’s the purpose. We hope that you will be doing consultation and next week we can have further discussion on this proposal.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to our clerk, Shaila, for a lot of hard work that has been done. It provides us some facts with regard to the schedule to give us some sense about the amount of time that people spend on committees.
I know it’s always hard to make changes. It’s not an easy thing. We are traditionalists. We like our ways. Doing things differently always provides a degree of challenge, but I think it certainly provides an opportunity to look at a different way to how we are currently functioning.
I sit on the National Defence Committee, which meets on Mondays. It works for me, but I know for people who are coming from great distances, it’s problematic to be on the committee, and that’s just a reflection of that work. Equally, I know there have been other difficulties when we run into a committee wanting to meet after a holiday, where you have to get special permission and what have you.
I think what this attempts to do is try to bring a bit of balance and a sense of equality about how we can meet differently. Senator MacDonald is raising a legitimate point. There is a tradition of how the Foreign Affairs Committee is meeting. The bigger question is whether we can make this work. If it’s a pilot, if it doesn’t work, we go back to our schedule. But equally so, groups will have to have a thorough discussion about what we are agreeing to do, if we agree to do this at the end of the day.
I know that a lot of work has been put into this. I like the document that goes with it. I sit on the Banking Committee, and I go to two meetings per week. I could argue that it could be more efficient, but that is just my bias. At the same time, I think this provides an opportunity for us to look at it in a constructive way and determine whether we can get the work done in the time frame that we are here.
I think Senator Batters raised some questions about overlap. We currently have that, and that is a legitimate problem. I think we still have to figure that out because some of us may be sitting on committees that might be meeting at the same time, and we will have to figure out how we deal with those issues at the end of the day.
It’s a really good piece of work. It provides us an opportunity to do some deeper reflection and hopefully try to come back with a constructive way of how to make this work, if we chose to do so. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for the hard work you have done. You have provided a different path for us, and we need to think about it.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you both very much for being here, and also thank you very much for the work that you are doing. When you look at a table like this — I’ve worked on these before — you move one piece, but it means moving three other pieces. To come in with a completed document, thank you very much for that.
We know that there are overlaps. We can look at those and adjust them. The Conservative caucus certainly does not want to try to be in two places at the same time, so thank you very much.
I really like the idea of the pilot. It would iron some things out. It may mean that people are not able to be on the committees that they are on now. You look over the schedules a lot before you start to pick out the committees that work best for you. There may be a lot. Wednesdays could be very busy and certainly Thursdays. All days, actually, but particularly Wednesdays, which goes well into the evening.
It’s a great start. If we begin to look at it as a pilot, we’ll see things that may not work and things that work great. Thank you very much for that.
Senator Ringuette: I think our timing to do a pilot on this new schedule is very important. We are kind of ending a Parliament, and if we start this next September, I believe that by May 2025, we would be in a position with data to do a proper review and have feedback from the pilot. As I say, I find this more efficient, but that is my personal preference. Maybe by May or June 2025, I will have another perspective from the comments of different committee chairs and senators.
Senator Cordy: We know that there were many frustrations from people who were on committees that met on Mondays following break weeks, when they had to request special permission to sit on the Mondays. Most times they would get it but not always. I think that has been eliminated.
Senator Ringuette: Yes. Bear in mind also the fact that, as Ms. Anwar has mentioned, we are kind of freeing up 12 hours of possible committee work per week, if needed. There could be some special circumstances that would necessitate a special committee to meet. This also provides us with the flexibility.
I have heard a comment that 8 o’clock is kind of early in the morning. I personally don’t mind — I’m an early bird, up at 5:00. Most workplaces start work at 8 o’clock, so I think the Senate is capable of starting then too.
Senator Cordy: When I look at the Indigenous Peoples Committee, they have 41 meetings and 60 hours, so they may have some concerns. I think we are all going to bring it to our caucuses and have discussions on it.
Senator Ringuette: If you convert the number of hours they met, they met for 49 hours —
Senator Cordy: I have 60 hours and 23 minutes, 41 meetings and 153 witnesses. They are way up there.
Senator Ringuette: Yes. If they had done the same hours of work in committee at three hours of meetings, instead of meeting for 41 committees, they would have met for 20.
Senator Cordy: How many?
Senator Ringuette: Twenty. To do the same amount of work that they did — two committees at two hours per committee — if those committees would have lasted for three hours, it would have necessitated 20 meetings of that group instead of 41, which is half the number of committees to achieve the same number of meeting times.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Ringuette’s calculations are using the total meeting hours. What that shows is even though APPA had two, two-hour time slots per week, they typically didn’t meet for four hours per week. It was more like two-and-a-bit.
Senator Ringuette: It was 1.5 hours per two-hour meeting.
The Chair: In other words, for the calculation, they took the 60 hours and 23 minutes and divided that by 3 hours.
Senator Ringuette: On average, if I look at the comparison that I did from two, two hours and one, three hours for the committees that would be moving to a three-hour time slot, you see a difference of between 40% and 50% of committee meetings to accomplish the same number of hours of committee meetings.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to Senator Ringuette and Ms. Anwar for doing all the hard work and compiling the data and the information.
No proposal we will receive to gain efficiencies and participation — because I think that participation is core — will tick every box. We have to accept that. There will always be an upside and a downside. What I particularly like about this proposal is that it gives us time to try it out and see if it works.
In particular, the Monday committee meetings are severely disadvantaged. We were able to avert a near disaster yesterday because there was simply no quorum, no senators. Flights are not arriving. People are sick. All of these things happen.
The fact that we have to ask for permission to sit on Mondays depends upon the leaders agreeing. That dependence does not really speak well to the importance of the work that is being done.
I support testing this, figuring out what works, what doesn’t, then reviewing it to decide whether this becomes adopted into our practice, or we have another iteration of something else. Suffice it to say that the system that we have now does not work.
Senator Busson: My comments were encompassed by some comments made earlier.
I want to endorse the comments around Mondays. It is an insult to those committees that, first, they have to ask permission and, second, that certain people from wide ranges at both extremities of the country find it difficult to get here and fully participate in those committees. I wanted to reiterate that for the record.
Also, there was a comment from Ms. Anwar regarding the Ethics Committee. I do not speak for the Ethics Committee, although I am on the committee. It may be, if the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators needed to move, we now have standing permission to meet when the Senate is sitting. We could do that on a Tuesday evening as well. There would be less Senate time being missed because on Tuesday nights we wrap up by 6 p.m. sometimes, or the clock is seen. That might be an alternative to anybody who takes umbrage to the Wednesday.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any other comments? If not, I just want to add that it would be really good, Senator Ringuette, if you could distribute your calculations table to everyone. We don’t have it. I know that this involves translating the table, so perhaps that could be done.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I would have to ask Ms. Anwar to do the work and forward the proposed new agenda to every senator, and the statistics and analysis I did on moving from two, two, two to the three-hour meetings, and the efficiencies that would be gained, if you could do that.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: Yes. It just wasn’t possible this morning, but we can do the translation.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: If any group wants to comment further or have a discussion, I am available and, with Ms. Anwar’s time constraints, I would hope that she would be as well because, as far as I’m concerned, she is the expert.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for this excellent presentation. We’ll be continuing this discussion over the coming weeks. I gather that all committee members are being urged to consult their various groups and caucuses to see whether this experiment meets with approval. This isn’t a permanent change, but an experiment for the remainder of this Parliament. We know that our findings will be a bit more conclusive with the data available in May. We’ll see where things stand then.
Before wrapping up, I would like to talk about this committee’s future agenda. I have tried to see what topics we could discuss. As you all know, a proposal will be tabled by the government. Senator Lankin has held consultations with the leaders of the various groups to discuss certain desired amendments to the Rules.
Some aspects of this proposal are related to our work. Will we be asked to consider these changes in more detail? I can’t tell you anything about the process of studying this proposal. Given the proposal that will be tabled at some point, I would like us to focus, over the coming weeks, on the mandate and structure of the committees. This was really the topic of our study, specifically rule 12-7.
[English]
This rule described the number and mandate of each committee. We did that kind of exercise at the beginning in 2021 or 2022. I do not remember the year. It was at the beginning of my starting to chair this committee. We made some stylistic change to the mandate in the rules. Now, we want to look at the mandate more in-depth.
We have some demands from some committees, especially the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that wants to have the addition of development into their mandate.
We heard from the chair and deputy chairs of committees on different aspects of their mandate and the structure. We know there are some issues that are not covered by the committees, especially on the question of the labour market, employment and human resources, human capital. We tried to have an experiment and have that kind of a committee, but it was not conclusive.
I would like us to start next week on this big issue of the number of committees and their mandate, rule 12-7, and to have a report on this issue before June. We will start with that.
If everybody succeeded in having some study of the scheduling proposed by Senator Ringuette and Ms. Anwar for next week, hopefully we could conclude that as well. That is one thing I wish to do. I do not know if we will be ready after that to have a discussion and conclude something on the number of senators per committee; that will also lead us to write another report.
After that, if we have time — and hopefully we will — I would like us to discuss Senate public bills. There are some issues with Senate public bills. There are many Senate public bills and, because of the number, it has an impact on our work in the Senate and on committee.
Are the numbers per senator an issue? What is the process to accelerate things on this side of the story? I would like us to start a discussion on that to understand what the kinds of remedies are that we can adopt.
We have been hearing about the lottery system. We heard horrors about that. What is it exactly? What is it in principle? What is it in practice? How does it work? We may need to hear from some witnesses about that. That would also be something that we would like to study.
At some point, if we have time — it was on our list — I would also like to have a common understanding of rule 12-8, the orders of reference. In the study, with the witnesses we heard, it showed that the principle that the committee needs an order of reference from the Senate for their studies is not understood in the same way for all of the committees.
Some committees, they go into the Senate. They have a general order of reference. They start studies that they want without having specific orders of reference. What does this rule mean? Can we have a common understanding of this rule about the orders of reference? That would be useful.
I do not know. It probably will not be me, but maybe in this Parliament we could address the issue of the appointment process of committees. The witnesses we heard said we should have regional representation, gender balance. People say that we should have proportionality. What about the role of non‑affiliated senators? Those who are non-affiliated also have a right to participate in the activities of committees. We didn’t hear from them, but we hear them otherwise. I think it should be addressed as a matter of equality among senators. Each senator needs to have the right to accomplish their constitutional duties equally.
All of those issues should also be addressed. It is a big agenda, a big list. I will be here until October 10, 2024. I would like to compact all of that into my time.
Senator Batters wishes to intervene. I give her the floor.
Senator Batters: Yes, our steering committee is in the middle of discussing a few of those issues. I responded last Wednesday but didn’t hear back yet on a couple of those things, including a potential meeting about having some evidence about the written and delayed answers that we were previously going to hear. I look forward to having that discussion at the steering level.
The Chair: Okay. We can have this discussion at the steering level, absolutely. We will try to find a time to have a steering committee meeting.
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, in regard to our review of committee mandates, is it possible, before we start to discuss this, to have the mandates of the committees in the House of Commons and maybe from other jurisdictions, like Australia, the United States? Then we can have a schedule and at least different views on the possibilities.
The Chair: Do you mean you would like us to give priority to rule 12-7 in our work? Is this what you mean? The structure and —
Senator Ringuette: No. I am saying that I would like our clerk and our representative from the Library of Parliament to supply us with the mandates of the different committees in the House of Commons and the mandate of committees in the Australian Parliament.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Ringuette: Then we can have a different view of what is happening elsewhere. That may help us in our work.
The Chair: That is a very good point. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
The Chair: That is understood, and we will do that.
If there is nothing else, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)