THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:33 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: Good morning. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. My name is Diane Bellemare, and I’m a senator from Quebec. I’m the chair of this committee. As usual, we’ll go around the table, starting to my right.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Oh: Senator Oh from Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario, replacing Senator Busson.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan, deputy chair of the committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone. We’ll start with a few introductory remarks, but, if you don’t mind, given that we’re talking about the structure and mandates of committees, and given that we have the clerk responsible for that whole sector here with us, I’d like to invite her to sit at the table with us. If we have question, she can answer them. Is everyone okay with that?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I would invite Shaila Anwar to join us at the table. If we have questions, she can answer them. I’ll start by saying that we’re dealing with an important topic today, one that will likely require more than one meeting. We’re going to talk about rule 12-7, which describes all the Senate committees. We’ll be discussing the structure and mandate of those committees. This is something we look at regularly, and, as you know, the structure and mandates of Senate committees have evolved organically over the years. Changes have been made, but those changes have been minor. Mostly, we’ve added committees.
A lot of work has been done on this since 2000. In 2002, for example, the rules committee at the time, under the Hon. Jack Austin as chair and the Hon. Terry Stratton as vice-chair, undertook a large-scale study of committees and their structure. It studied their size, their calendar and their mandates, but few of its recommendations were accepted, other than those about adding committees. The Rules as a whole were also revised between 2010 and 2012, but no changes were made to rule 12-7. In 2016 and 2017, when the Special Committee on Senate Modernization was active, a subcommittee analyzed the whole issue of committees. Again, no changes were made as a result of that committee’s work.
During the pandemic, somewhat informal discussions occurred among certain senators. These discussions were initiated by Senator Forest-Niesing, who’s no longer with us. The discussions resulted in a number of documents that we tabled in 2022. They’re in our shared documents. Lastly, in 2022, we examined rule 12-7 to make stylistic changes to the Rules. We recently brought in a few witnesses to help us take certain elements into consideration in our study of committees’ mandates.
Before I go any further —
[English]
I would like to stress the fact that, as you know, our deliberations are televised; that is a novelty because usually all of the sessions done on the study of our Rules in the past were not. Now it is televised. Even when boards or in enterprise they do those kinds of meetings, they usually do it behind closed doors, but we are open.
I invite each member of this committee to remember that. To this effect, because we are televised, sometimes our deliberations are not transcribed right away. Some journalists who may listen to us — because personally I speak French, I speak English, I go back and forth and sometimes it might be difficult to follow me — I would like to correct some impression that some journalists might have had from what I said at the last meeting.
When we were speaking of the ideal size of committee, I did refer to scientific studies which analyzed the optimal size of management boards in enterprises and in central banking because I was looking at central banking. These studies refer to the possibility in large groups of discouraging some members to prepare their file because in large groups — as you know — sometimes you cannot express yourselves and after some time you are discouraged by that.
An economist who did study the psychology — even though it is not their field — of members in committee stressed the fact that, in large numbers, some members do not participate. They call this phenomenon the free rider. Economists always like to do that kind of thing. By saying that, I did not want to say that senators were free riders, even though some journalists may have interpreted it that way. I wanted to correct that.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I always like, when a senator or a witness refers to a study, to have referral of the study. I would appreciate it if you would give us these references so we can consult the whole study and make our own appreciation.
The Chair: I’m sorry?
Senator Saint-Germain: You referred to some studies, and I would like to have the references to these studies.
The Chair: Perfect. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Just on that, that is something that I asked for, actually, last week in questioning it. It hasn’t been provided yet?
The Chair: I can provide it right now if you want. May I do it when we have a break? I just forgot about it.
Senator Batters: Sure.
The Chair: I have it here, and I will forward it when we break. You will have it in the second part of the meeting.
[Translation]
In closing, I just want to say that, even though our committee system works relatively well, there’s no reason not to try revising our rules. All institutions rethink how they operate. Our deliberations happen in committee. We spend a lot of time here, but some things have changed in recent years, as everyone is well aware.
For starters, the Senate has changed. It’s no longer bipartisan; it now has several groups. These structural changes can have repercussions on our work in committee, so it behooves us to adapt our rules accordingly.
The economy has also changed a lot over the years. Our committee system has changed very little compared to the phenomenal changes that have taken place in our economy and the way we do things.
Today, we’re looking at rule 12-7, which covers committee structures and mandates. Initially, I intended to start with committee structure, but for the sake of efficiency, I think it would be better to start with committee mandates because the sixth report and the testimony we’ve heard from committee chairs and vice-chairs have more to do with committee mandates than their structure.
We’ll start with that because we’ll go through each committee one by one, as described in rule 12-7. However, I think the main question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do our standing committees, particularly the thematic ones, all cover topics that are relevant right now?
[English]
In other words, are our thematic committees today broad enough to cover all the important topics for Canadians and for our parliamentary work? We have different kinds of committees, but do they enable us to attack what concerns Canadians and the problems with respect to our own provinces and for minority groups?
This is the question we must keep in mind, even though we should maybe add some committees, and the proposition has been made many times in the Senate. For instance, a committee was requested on human capital, human resources and so forth. However, we are limited in our own time as senators, and we have to take into consideration the optimal tasks for us to do optimal work.
With that in mind, I would take some questions. You have received or you have with you rule 12-7. We will go paragraph by paragraph to introduce the comments made by our witnesses in the previous weeks and months.
Are there any comments on the big question? Do you think we cover everything? Do you have something to say right now?
If not, we will go to rule 12-7. As you see the rule, the big title is, “Standing Committees of the Senate.” In the rule, as you read it, there is no paragraph explaining the category of committees we have; we list them all. Rule 12-7(1) refers to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. This is more of a managerial committee; four of them are listed in a row in our Rules — Rule 12-7(2) shows the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament; rule 12-7(3) shows the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators; the fourth one, rule 12-7(4), refers to the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight.
For these committees, we do not need to revise their mandates. They have been revised, and we did not hear from the chairs of those committees. It’s okay; some of them are new. They changed through time to accommodate the questioning or our reality in the management of the Senate.
This brings us to the fifth paragraph, which is rule 12-7(5), which is the first permanent, thematic committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, and it states, “. . . to which may be referred matters relating to official languages generally.” In our deliberations, there was nothing specific about this committee, so we will go to others.
We turn to rule 12-7(6), the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In our deliberations, a letter was addressed to us from the chair of this committee, Senator Boehm. He asked us to change the title of this committee and to include “development.” The request was to have it read, “the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Development.” That is one thing. Second, others were questioning human rights at the international level as well. Some questions were asked about that.
First, do you agree that we add the term “development” to this mandate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: What is the main purpose of adding that? Isn’t that something that is generally considered to be within the scope of that committee anyway? Have they found that that is something that is —
The Chair: He explained it. I don’t have the letter with me, but he came to the committee. They wanted to do have not only the relations but the idea of development. We have a department that does development. They go to some countries and have an exchange to help some countries to develop.
Senator Batters: Sure, yes. But we have many departments. We do not necessarily have a committee dealing with every specific one of them set out.
The Chair: It is to be more precise. The chair is not with us here today. I cannot argue for the chair of this committee, but they were there. We questioned him. It was a demand that came from the whole Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee.
Senator Woo: Yes, I am a member of the committee. He consulted with all of the committee members. We agreed unanimously on this proposed change.
It reflects a desire to give more emphasis to the issues of international development, somewhat in parallel with the merger of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, a number of years ago.
Senator Boehm, himself, of course, was a former deputy minister for development, so he brings that perspective and has, since his time as chair, introduced a greater attention to issues of development it is fair to say than may have been present under previous chairs. It is not to criticize previous chairs but just to say that with different chairs there are different emphases that can be brought to the committee.
By putting “development” explicitly into the name of the committee, it encourages all chairs of whatever backgrounds to remember that development is also part of the mandate of that committee.
Senator Batters: I have a question given what Senator Woo just said.
Did you say that the development agency is now part of the foreign affairs department?
Senator Woo: Yes, they merged, CIDA.
Senator Batters: It does not seem to prevent them from doing anything.
Senator Woo: Correct. They call themselves Global Affairs Canada now rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Development. We could well have made a proposal to change the committee to Global Affairs. We could quibble about language.
All I would say is that this issue was discussed. There was an email poll of all committee members, and there was unanimous agreement.
Senator Ringuette: With a view to looking forward and modernizing the title of our committee, I would agree that the title should be “Global Affairs,” and within that mandate you would have trade and development. It should also include human rights, which is a major issue. If we had “development,” which I agree with, it is also a parallel with human rights. I would support a committee on global affairs that would include trade, relations, development and human rights. I find that would be more of a topic in today’s language and perspective of this group.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we go any further, I just want to make it clear that what we’re doing today is going over what we heard. Based on that, we’ll table a rewritten version of rule 12-7. I feel that’s how we should proceed. Today, we’re going over the information and listening, and then people can make suggestions. That’s how we’re going to proceed.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: In regard to the recommendation, it is quite appropriate for many reasons, one, obviously the chair on behalf of the committee made the recommendation. In the context of the Senate always trying to figure out where things go when they come to the Senate, this makes it explicit: It goes to this committee because it is in the mandate. Equally, adding international human rights is also in my view — because, quite often, there is a debate about who would hear that issue? Where would we send it if we were to take it up?
The more we can make it explicit for committees in their mandate makes it easier for all of us to understand. Equally, when we sign up to serve on a committee, we also know what to expect in regard to the committee’s mandate. It also deals with the reality that we do not have to create new committees or other subcommittees to deal with issues if the committee has a broad enough mandate to fulfill those responsibilities.
At the end of the day, also when you look at the House and you look in our Senate — we are looking at other places as we try to understand how we can better structure our committees to perform the responsibilities of the Senate — there are a lot of questions we could probably resolve where we can do things better. It would also mean having to broaden or lessen the scope of the mandate the committee has.
In my view, this is a thoughtful recommendation. Equally, it would be a better way for the committee to clearly know those issues when they arise, whether it is through legislation or other recognition of a private member’s bill. They would go to the committee for deliberations and a recommendation for us to deal with coming out of the committee. It is appropriate in my view and makes a lot of political sense but, equally, a practical sense for us to function knowing clearly what the mandate is.
Senator Omidvar: I support changing the name of the committee from Foreign Affairs and International Trade and adding the word “development” because it is more precise. I am not keen on changing the name of the committee to “Global Affairs.” I am not keen on committees following the political inclinations of one government. The next government will come and make it something else; I would rather stick to unknitting.
I am concerned about adding “human rights” for a simple reason. I believe that if you excavate international human rights from the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, it possibly spells the death knell of the committee because its mandate would be severely hampered. What do we then do with human rights of Canadians? Would that then go to Social Affairs, burdening it further? We have to look at the implications of the workload before we make these decisions.
Senator Batters: Yes, I agree about the “Global Affairs.” Different governments change the title of departments all the time, and I don’t think that should be something that leads to a change in the name of Senate committees which may have existed for many decades for good reason.
Also, I echo those comments about human rights. In fact, when we did this study, we had significant pushback including from the chair of the Human Rights Committee who didn’t want there to be any idea — as I believe at least one member of the Foreign Affairs Committee had suggested — to potentially merge the mandate of the Human Rights Committee with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am looking at page 13 of our report and it specifically states the pushback about that, and that would be something that would be detrimental to the Human Rights Committee itself. If we were to add that into the actual title, that could lead to further pushback down that way. Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Serving as a member on the Foreign Affairs Committee the last year or two, this was not a decision that was taken lightly. At the same time, we reviewed the foreign services machinery. We reviewed what we were doing and want to be doing. This was missing. The development aspect was missing in the descriptor of our name.
From the perspective of those who did a deep dive on the committee and the chair bringing it here, I would call it a combination of a few things happening at the same time. A freshening of what this committee means, the kinds of things we were dealing anyways or wishing to pursue, a variety of meaningful things to make this change.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I agree with Senator Omidvar’s concerns about merging the human rights and foreign affairs committees. I think the human rights mandate should remain with the existing Senate committee. We shouldn’t split it up and strip that part of the committee’s role. The committee members may talk about international human rights violations, but what if the subject of human rights violations in Canada or in our institutions comes up? That shouldn’t go to the Foreign Affairs Committee. It should go to the Human Rights Committee.
Senator Ringuette: The people at the table who have participated in parliamentary missions recognize that, if we add the word “development” —
[English]
— it’s tied to human rights, democracy. It is also tied more and more to trade.
Notwithstanding when we come to the discussion of other committees, we have to be consistent and recognize the holistic role of a certain subject. When we talk about foreign affairs, we talk about relations, trade, development and human rights. It’s all complementary to the Canadian view of foreign affairs. This has nothing to do with the Human Rights Committee.
We want to do some spring cleaning and a refresher of our committee mandate. We will have to understand that maybe we will not always be in accordance, but at least we have to deal with what is happening in reality and put that reality into the sphere of our committee work. For me, yes, international development and human rights are part of the holistic approach with regard to foreign affairs.
[Translation]
The Chair: Our goal is to review our committees. We may therefore decide to merge committees or not. Time will tell. Right now, we’re examining the issue so we can look at how we want all of our committees to adapt to deal with specific issues, such as human rights.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I’m on the Foreign Affairs Committee and the steering committee of Foreign Affairs. We’re getting off track here. It wasn’t a very controversial move. There was a consensus around the table that we add that. We should leave it at that for now. If there’s any other change, it will have to come back to the committee anyway.
The Chair: You agree to change it to “development”?
Senator MacDonald: Sure.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’d like to add my point of view to the conversation, and it’s very close to Senator Yussuff’s. The connection between human rights and foreign affairs often surfaces in our foreign affairs policy. As a group, we have to decide if and when to intervene when human right violations occur in other countries. That’s all intrinsically linked.
As for human rights in Canada, I feel that’s a transcendent theme that ties into several committees, such as legal and constitutional affairs, social affairs, agriculture, and national security and defence.
I’m not here to win a popularity contest, but I believe that having a single committee address all human rights issues in Canada would limit the impact of and consideration given to what I believe is an important issue.
Personally, that’s not a committee I would keep, but I know that’s a minority opinion.
The Chair: If there are no further comments for now, I’ll take that all under advisement. At our next meeting, we’ll present a different name that I hope we can all agree on.
Is there anything else to add on that? If not, we’ll move on to the National Finance Committee. Senator Woo?
[English]
Senator Woo: I totally support giving our chair the ability to propose alternatives, and I would encourage you to consult with Senator Boehm as well, share with him the conversation we had and see if he has any suggestions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: I agree. I think committee members have said that they’ve had a lot of discussion, and they would like “development” added. That makes sense to me.
I’m sure there are a lot of committees that will touch on human rights through parts of it, but that doesn’t mean you have to dismantle the Human Rights Committee, which deals with international and regional Canadian human rights.
[Translation]
The Chair: We’re on rule 12-7 for the National Finance Committee. Yes, Senator Batters?
[English]
Senator Batters: With respect to that last point, if we could see, as steering committee, what —
The Chair: Absolutely, Senator Batters.
[Translation]
Pursuant to rule 12-7(7), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance may deal with matters relating to federal estimates generally, the public accounts and reports of the Auditor General, and government finance generally.
[English]
On this topic, we heard there is nothing to be changed on that. The comments that the chair made were more related to the fact that they had a lot of bills, a lot of work and he wanted the schedule to take that into account. I suspect we’ll leave it this way.
This brings us to 12-7(8), the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which may be referred matters relating to transport and communications generally.
On this topic, if you remember, there was a lot of discussion. Even the chair of this committee said that they could have a bit more subject because it was very important when it was created — remember, it was one of the first committees created in the Senate. It was created around 1867. We had, at that time, a big transportation problem with the trains and everything, with opening Canada everywhere. This committee is old. It transformed itself through time. It discussed electronic vehicles recently.
While revising our committee to be able to give some room to other kinds of subjects that were not there in 1867, we may consider changing this or taking one part of this committee and giving it to another one. We’re here to discuss that.
Senator Ringuette: First of all, I agree with the committee comments that they could deal with other issues. I think that in a broader perspective, the committee should be the standing Senate committee on infrastructure, which would take into consideration transportation and communications. I would also add technology. It should be “infrastructure and technology” because this is the basic physical aspect of building a country and moving forward. That’s my first off-the-cuff thought on this.
The Chair: Interesting, Senator Ringuette.
Senator Batters: First of all, chair, I was wondering who you were referring to when you said that the chair of this committee had indicated that they perhaps could use more work on their committee. I don’t believe it was Senator Housakos, who did not —
The Chair: No, Senator Dawson. We had two meetings on this topic. We had the first meeting when we started to discuss the stylistic change. There was a question of creating human capital. We had the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, or SOCI, and Transport Committee visit us. After that, we heard testimony from everybody.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t the current chair. Frankly, over the last few years, that committee has actually been very busy with some very large bills that have taken a considerable amount of time.
I also wanted to bring up that though it may not be at times the most elegant merger of the two, it does seem to provide some very good study on some important topics. There was certainly not in any way overall agreement that that committee should have parts stripped away or that it should have parts added. As I recall, there was quite a bit of debate about both of those things.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’ll be very brief. The word “communications” in the committee’s title is really a problem. The word “transport” is important. I agree that the words “infrastructure and technology” would be good additions. However, the words “public transportation” are extremely important, and we could take away the word “communications”.
[English]
Senator Woo: I like “infrastructure and technology.” I think what it might mean, though, is that it might take the science out of SOCI.
The Chair: Yes, and that is great.
Senator Woo: Okay. That was easy.
The Chair: We know that. We’ll come back to SOCI.
Senator Omidvar: I believe that adding “technology” to this committee will give it the space, given the evolution of technology, such as artificial intelligence. It is so huge. I can tell you — and you’ve heard me say — SOCI does not have the bandwidth, the time, to pay attention to these emerging factors that will play a greater part in our lives. If human rights are crosscutting, then I would hope that committee pays attention to the issue of artificial intelligence and human rights. I don’t have much confidence in that, though. I would continue to harp on space for domestic human rights somewhere in our committee structure.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That’s a good point, Senator Omidvar. I think we will write something on this line and come back later on that.
We’re now on 12-7(9), the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which may be referred matters relating to legal and constitutional matters generally.
We just heard that this committee has a lot of work to do. They don’t do much research because they’re more of a legislative nature. Most of their work is to study bills, and that’s really important. I’ll come back to that when we talk about the structure, but most of this committee’s work is on bills, so I think it can remain the same name.
Senator Batters: Since I’ve been on the Legal Committee for 11 years and I’m currently the deputy chair, I wanted to just say that certainly we do studies when we have the time to do them. However, when you’re constantly flooded — as we are — with government bills and private members’ bills, those always have to take priority.
I just note that we did a very important study about six years ago about court delays and things that continue to come up even now. We were able to do that study. It took us about 18 months, but there are very important parts of that study that the federal government should frankly be paying attention to right now because we have a crisis situation.
The Chair: Thank you. The next committee —
Senator Saint-Germain: I just want to insist on my point regarding human rights. For me, human rights are of the utmost importance, both domestic and international. I want to stress the fact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also part of our Constitution, and the Legal Committee also has to care about human rights.
The Chair: Thank you for that precision. Next is 12-7(10), the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, to which may be referred matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally.
Senator Ringuette: It’s not per se for this committee, but I want to stress this because it has to be in our frame of mind when we look at rule 12-7. I’ve looked at the different documents that we were provided, and I believe we’re lacking in, of course, human capital — I’ve been saying this for four years.
I also believe that when we look at the economy, we have to realize that with the geography of our country, with urban and rural situations, that when the Banking Committee looks at the economy, it looks at it on a national basis. But there is no specific attribution to the rural economy, which is really different. If we don’t have a vital rural economy in our country, the urban economy will go down the drain.
I just want to stress to all of you that we need to have a very particular and focused view with regard to how we can develop rural economies, and that is not in the mandate of Banking.
The Chair: As you may recall, this committee was one of the first committees created when Confederation happened. At that time, in terms of currency, the Bank of Canada Act did not exist, and there were many currencies all over the place. It was very important for the banking system to be able to assure the development of the country. The focus on banking, financial institutions and trade was the main focus.
Throughout time, as you know, economic problems became bigger than that. This committee thoroughly follows what the Bank of Canada does and the impact of monetary policy on Canada and on regions, but it’s not the specific committee at the moment that looks at regions. Maybe it should be.
You make a good comment. Maybe we can keep in mind the aspect of rurality because it could also be taken into account in the Agriculture Committee or other committees. Point well-taken.
Senator Woo: I think the problem with this committee is that all three terms are obsolete. You’ve already described why the term “banking” is obsolete — it reflects a particular period in time when the committee was set up.
The word “trade” is not obsolete, but it’s confusing because “trade” shows up in the Foreign Affairs Committee. I think that both should be expunged. “Commerce” is an old-fashioned term for economic exchange in a particular style that we don’t really talk about today. Today, there are different forms of economic exchange, including B companies and social innovation companies and so on, which are more broadly captured by the term “economy.”
One suggestion is that we change the title of this committee to “Industry,” which is all-encompassing. Industry involves not just manufacturing but services. You understand that very well. “Industry and Economy” is what I would suggest.
The Chair: It would include financial institutions because it’s an industry. It’s an industrial sector.
Senator Batters: First of all, the word “trade” isn’t in the title anymore. That was changed a while ago. For the longest time, that committee was called “Banking, Trade and Commerce” and now it’s Banking, Commerce and the Economy. That takes that into account.
I agree with Senator Ringuette that the rural part of Canada plays an extremely important part in the economy and, actually, it’s for that reason — and being from Saskatchewan — that I have to say that I never consider that the economy excludes rural Canada because, frankly, if we didn’t have rural Canada in a country like Canada where we’re so export dependent and natural resource-based, with all of the great things that people in rural Canada provide, we probably wouldn’t have a viable country at this point. I always think that “economy” very much encompasses rural Canada, and I see that every day in my province.
Senator Yussuff: I support Senator Woo’s recommendation. I think it’s interesting, when you think of Senate committees, they are probably older than most around the table and they have a particular history. We have evolved since as a society and a country, yet these references are still there. To a large extent, banking is a classic example. For most people, us in the Banking Committee, think you had to have been in the banking field as a prerequisite to being on the Banking Committee. It’s almost like a clutch. They go there to defend a particular perspective.
I’m not a banker by any stretch of the imagination, but I fundamentally felt that I should be here because of the things they could or should be talking about. There are a variety of issues involving how the economy of this country functions to a large extent. We tend to focus on that less so than we could.
I think that reversing the title would make a lot of sense because it would mean that the evolution of the committee should reflect the changing nature of Canada, but also the way we operate. If you look back on the history of this committee, like a lot of committees in the Senate, political reality shaped most of the development of them and, of course, the forces at the time determined they would have a space to talk about their issue. Of course, we didn’t really change much, we just added onto in the committee.
I think the internal part of the economy, which is fundamental to internal trade, doesn’t get a lot of attention. It is a critical part of how commerce happens between provinces and the rest of the country, yet we don’t talk about that enough. The same could be said about the Transport Committee. It is a legacy of the history of when the railroad dominated transportation in this country. It’s no longer the reality, but they have a place in the Senate and the House of Commons. There is a room in the House of Commons named after transport. You can go there and see the paintings on the wall that reflect that.
I think it’s important in the context of updating and modernization. This makes sense. I think it would help the committee in its effort to focus on other things, not just on banking.
The Chair: I want to make a specific comment about what we did study in Banking because I have sat on that committee for a long time. We did study, many times, interprovincial trade and the term “trade.” Because International Affairs was looking at international trade; we were looking at the commerce between the provinces.
Senator Cordy: I like the idea of the changing the name. Thank you for your comments and suggestions. “Industry and Economy” sounds fine. If it’s sort of close to that, that’s fine with me.
We just have to ask ourselves, when was the last time you were in a bank? It was a long time ago. How things have changed and how people just send — even cheque writing, you e-transfer money now. Things have changed so significantly over the past number of years, and I think the title has to reflect that, so that members of the committee have a bit more — and I know that people sort of twist the title to fit the issue that they want to talk about, but let’s make it a reality.
The Chair: Thank you. Good comment.
We will take that into consideration.
Senator Omidvar has to go for a couple of minutes. She will come back. She wanted to be here when we talk about SOCI, so we will revert to 12-7(11). Let’s now do 12-7(12), which is the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which may be referred matters relating to agriculture and forestry generally.
We have the chair here. If you recall, one of the demands was to add “Natural Resources” to the title. Maybe I’ll let you express the comment you made, Senator Black.
Senator Black: I think it was a suggestion. I wouldn’t call it a demand, and I don’t think it came from me. I think we’re open. I haven’t polled our committee, but I would suggest we’re open.
I think we have a hard enough time dealing with forestry, and we are trying to do our best to cover forestry issues when we can. To add another component would be difficult. I’m not averse to considering it.
I think one of my colleagues — it was the chair of the Fisheries Committee, maybe — I think fisheries was also suggested to go under Agriculture. It was; that was opposed by the chair of Fisheries. Those are my comments. Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: I look at this and I’m scratching my head from many perspectives. I see fisheries and oceans, and I know we are territorial around this space, but it begs the question in the broader — I think thinking about why fisheries aren’t part of agriculture, and oceans, for that matter.
At the same time, natural resources, if you look at it, we have forestry and agriculture, and I would argue forestry is also a natural resource in its own way. There’s some logic and no logic at the same time. It may be a question of just giving the committee a bit of a mandate rather than trying to figure out how we fix some of these things.
I think if we are going to attempt to remedy some issues, it may require a bit — because I think there are a lot of contradictions in these three or four committees that needs to be probably thought through, in my view, looking at it and trying to understand it. Not right now, but sometimes natural resources can take up a committee’s entire mandate. As we know, the expansion of the pipeline has been a big issue and, of course, it took a lot of time.
I could argue that, similarly, is it appropriate for natural resources to be under environment? I would probably raise some challenging questions as to whether that makes any sense at all. Again, that’s just my thinking, looking at how these things have been put together. It may require a bit more effort than I think we want to put into it.
Senator Black: Just to confirm, I think it was a previous chair of Agriculture that suggested natural resources could go under this.
Senator Woo: I’ll share how I think about this issue. We’ve already talked about how “Industry and Economy” would or could encompass all industries. Of course, agriculture, forestry and fisheries are industries.
So how do you solve that problem? The way I think about it is that the “Industry and Economy” committee would deal with all industries from the sense of how these industries organize themselves and the problems that they face as industries within an economy, whereas a committee that looks at agriculture and/or forestry and/or fisheries, in some combination, looks at the husbandry and management of the resource, the cultivation of the resource — the soil study, for example. A good example of that, or fish stock management or reforestation.
I know these are economic issues, too, but they are different categories of economic issues, if you understand what I mean. If that is a helpful way of thinking about how we organize ourselves, I put that out there for you to consider.
Senator Ringuette: I have no recommendation. I need to reflect.
I want to stress that here lies the basis of rural economics. We are the agriculture, forestry and fisheries. All of those happen in rural Canada. I am highlighting that for our reflection.
Senator Batters: With that taken into account, we also need to remember that an important function of what we do in the Senate is to represent our regions. If we do things like potentially merge the Agriculture Committee into a committee that basically makes it one out of four topics — or the Fisheries Committee, same sort of thing — that will substantially impact different regions of Canada. Not having a committee where agriculture takes a primary role will impact a region like mine. Not having a committee where the primary subject is fisheries would impact an area like Senator MacDonald’s.
We need to take that into account. That is one of our primary roles here. We cannot make all of these committees not take that into account.
The Chair: That is one of the reasons why the Fisheries and Oceans Committee was created: It is not a whole committee, even though the fisheries and the oceans are very important concerns from the start of Confederation. It was amalgamated with agriculture for a long time. They were separated — I do not remember when — around the year 2000 or during the 1990s.
We have enough consideration for the next step on those — agriculture, forestry and fisheries committee.
That brings us to environment — 12-7(14) — the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. That is a big committee. It is very important in our consideration of climate change. When that was created, we were not talking about climate change; we were talking about environment in more specific terms of taking care of our resources. That is why we had “energy” with “environment” and “natural resources.”
Now, it is different. The approach is more holistic with environment and very day-to-day for Canadians who have to take care of the climate changing and gas emissions.
What are your thoughts about that?
Senator Ringuette: I have been a member of this committee, and either you were studying environmental issues or you were studying energy issues. I cannot remember that we studied any issues with regard to natural resources, honestly.
Senator MacDonald, you were there at the same time I was. Maybe you have other comments, but it seems to me that the energy item and the environmental item are a lot of work if a committee wants to entertain legislation or a study.
The Chair: If I understand you, you would drop the “natural resources” from this committee and focus on “environment” and “energy” for the moment.
Senator MacDonald: I have been a member of that committee for a long time. We always discussed energy and environment; we really did not ever have a discussion about natural resources. The name was there, but it was never a topic of study that I can recall.
The Chair: We will take that into consideration while reworking Agriculture and Fisheries.
Senator Batters: Then where does “natural resources” go? That is a very important part of Canada’s economy as a whole. It cannot just be given short shrift in a committee that has all of these other industries also noted.
I have occasionally sat on that committee for the purposes of studies. There have been times where natural resources have come up. That is a key component and employs millions of people in Canada. We have to ensure it has an appropriate place.
The Chair: But it is also included in Agriculture and Forestry because those are natural resources, as well as in Fisheries and Oceans with the oil industry. So what remains of “natural resources” is the mining sector. Maybe we will be more specific. Instead of talking in terms of natural resources, we will specify energy or mines. I do not know.
The point is that natural resources are in those three committees, and we used the term “natural resources” in the title of that last one. But it is a very inclusive word, so maybe we should be more specific.
Senator Batters: Maybe the clerk could tell us what else might be encompassed in “natural resources” that we would need to find an appropriate place for.
Senator Woo: I am keen to have environment as a stand-alone. I see the logic of having energy, mining and natural resources in one bucket. That makes sense to me. Forestry would be a part of natural resources. You wouldn’t need to single it out.
To put environment in there with mining and energy is going to create conflicts. It has all of the time, yes.
Senator Yussuff: If you are going to separate, just on the question of environment, you might want to put environment and climate change. There is an evolution of thinking about that, and it would be appropriate to reflect that reality.
The point Senator Woo made around energy, natural resources and possibly forestry — they group nicely together. There are common issues. It is hard to argue that forestry is not a natural resource. For that matter, energy is not a natural resource, as it is when you talk about mining. In a broad sense, they have the ability to focus people’s minds.
I believe there is a conflict right now on Environment dealing with these other issues because they are sometimes on the opposite end of what people’s thinking is. It needs to be thought through in the context of how we do our work.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to speak?
Senator MacDonald: I have one comment. We are discovering something here. We are trying to take terms from one committee and graft them onto another or take some off.
It would have been made easier if we had taken the approach that we are dealing with a blank slate. If it were 2023-24, and we were creating all new committees for the first time, we would find this to be a much easier exercise.
This is very difficult to do because many of the arguments that are made in terms of removing certain subjects are legitimate. On the other hand, as you said with natural resources, where do you put the other ones? It seems like it is Whac-a-Mole, right? You hit one and then something else pops up.
I do not know how we will resolve this, but it would be nice if we had an opportunity to start from scratch. It would make a big difference.
[Translation]
The Chair: That’s a very interesting comment, Senator MacDonald.
[English]
When you look at our history, because it was organically grown, it is difficult to manœuvre. When we talk about the structure, maybe there is some hope to unveil or perhaps think outside the box for the matters of our themes. I understand your concern.
Senator MacDonald: It would be nice if we all came in with our slate of what we think it should be.
The Chair: It is very hard to make a dress in 2024 or in the future with a dress that was made in 1867 or at the start of the last century. I understand. It is a remodelling. It may be hard.
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
The Chair: Have I received all comments?
Senator Batters: With respect to the suggestion that was made by Senator Woo to have Environment be its own stand-alone committee, that would be potentially adding a committee and not necessarily merging things.
As well, when the comment was made about maybe at times there can be some conflict between energy and environment — some have said that — at the same time, we have had a number of bills, very important legislation that has come before Parliament in the last five years or more, that have involved both of those aspects directly.
If you did not have a committee that dealt with both of them, what would you do then? Would they be sent to each committee for study? If you only sent it to one, it would not bring in the very important aspects of the other. That is life in Canada, actually, to have that mix between energy and environment and to try to find solutions that work as best we can for both of them and not to try to segment it off.
We have very real-life problems that we have to find solutions for. That is where I think that committee can work really well when dealing with that.
With respect to the term “climate change,” it was discussed at length in this committee a few years ago when we were dealing with titles and mandates of committees, and rather than add that to the title, it was decided to simply put it into the descriptor for that.
The Chair: Thank you. That is a useful comment. We will see later on when we debate and discuss our legislative work versus our thematic studies what kind of option we may want to look at.
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, rule 12-7(15). This says, “the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, to which may be referred matters relating to the Indigenous peoples of Canada.” We have changed the name at the request of the committee. It is broad in nature, and at the moment we have not had any comment necessitating a change in this paragraph.
Senator Batters: Since that name change was made to the committee, a few years ago I believe, the acronym for the committee has continued to be referred to as APPA, which is no longer reflective of the title of the committee. I don’t know how many people refer to it as acronyms ever, really, but at the same time the acronym should accurately reflect what the committee actually is, so I suggest that should be changed.
The Chair: That’s a good point.
Rule 12-7(16), which is the Human Rights Committee. It says, “the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, to which may be referred matters relating to human rights generally.”
As we know, this committee was created recently, compared to banking and others; and for the moment, as we know, the workload is more on studies than on legislative work.
Senator Woo: There are two considerations here. The first we have already discussed, which is that international human rights issues rightly belong to the Foreign Affairs Committee, whatever name we come up with. That takes care of the international part.
However, Senator Omidvar and others have pointed out that there are important domestic human rights issues that they need to consider as well. But Senator Saint-Germain made a very important point that the core of human rights is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a constitutional and legal issue, which would suggest that it belongs in Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We all know that the Legal Committee has a huge workload. Logically and analytically, I think that is where human rights belong, perhaps as a subcommittee or as a group that can focus more on human rights issues within the ambit of legal and constitutional affairs. To take it out of that larger framework I think is a category error.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: I will point again to our committee study that we did about that topic, and that others — including the current chair of human rights and other panellists for that committee — were very strong on the fact that they did not believe that their mandate was confined to domestic. They believed that they do have a definite role in potentially, when it warrants, looking at international human rights issues. I point to what it says in the report. It says the Human Rights Committee has a heavy workload and produces impactful studies that require a full committee. They do not want it merged with another committee or to make it a subcommittee of Foreign Affairs, and now I hear the possible solution voiced that maybe this would be well served to be a subcommittee of the Legal Committee. That would mean that some Legal Committee members — it is a very busy committee — would also need to serve on this subcommittee that involves human rights.
Also, I believe even making human rights a subcommittee diminishes the importance of it. I don’t care for that or think that solves the problem because Legal is already a very busy committee. It would really make the workload of that difficult plus it would take away from the time we would be able to spend on that.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Yussuff and then Senator Ringuette, and then we will go to others because I want some time to discuss the structure of rule 12-7.
Senator Yussuff: The committee has done — we need to appreciate — really important work. Work on Islamophobia was timely and needed, as well as the work on racism that they have done and continue to do. These issues will not diminish in any way in the near future of our country given the diversity of it. You need to at least have an ability to focus that, wherever the work will get done.
If you read through all of this — and I will raise it because it seems to only hit me in the face — women are about half of the population, and nowhere in this Senate structure do I see women or gender issues being focused upon as an issue and how the Senate deals with women’s issues. It goes all over the place.
In the context of needs, it raises some questions. I hear the broader question of the constitutionality of human rights. That is true, but as you know, there is also an ethos of the provincial Human Rights Code, a national obligation. Wherever we decide to think about this, we need to recognize the good work that has been done by the committee in the studies they have produced, and the attention that they have brought to these issues has been very timely for the Senate. Equally, it is something we should think about because, as I think about women’s issues, I do not know where we deal with it in the Senate committees as a whole even though I would argue that this is a very important issue in terms of gender.
Senator Ringuette: I’m voicing this out loud probably to foster reflection: From my perspective, when I think of human rights, yes, I see it in parts of our Charter rights, but I also look at it from the perspective of Maslow with regard to basic rights, which are to have food, housing and decent work. That is part of the Maslow triangle.
I am just putting this out there for your reflection with regard to this committee issue of human rights. There is more to it than maybe what we consider being human rights per se with regard to Islamophobia and so forth. There is more to this, and I hope we will reflect on this. There is more to human rights than identity.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I have two comments. The first is in support of Senator Yussuff’s question about where we can discuss these topics. We’ll think about that.
My second comment is about reconfiguring titles. When we met with committee chairs, the idea came up at two separate meetings to make our committee titles consistent with those in the other place. That could help us figure things out when we know that a given bill is being studied by a given committee. Is that a feasible option? They have far more committees than we do, but is there a way to have that correspondence between committees that have similar mandates and choose names that resemble the House of Commons committee names?
The Chair: That idea comes up from time to time. My understanding — and maybe Ms. Anwar can answer this question — is that, in the House of Commons, committees are associated with departments, and their names change or stay the same depending on whether departments change. We don’t name our committees after departments. We go by themes because we’re the chamber of sober second thought. Ms. Anwar may have something to add on that?
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Yes, that’s right. House of Commons committee names reflect Government of Canada departments, whereas Senate committees have never really been tied to departments. That is an option, though.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Cordy, did you want to add something?
[English]
Senator Cordy: I think the saddest part, when I look at the makeup of committees, the Social Affairs Committee is all women and I believe the Human Rights Committee is all women. That is unfortunate because social affairs and human rights should not be gender-specific.
I was a member of the Human Rights Committee for a number of years. I have not been a member in this new Parliament. The committee deals with a number of issues. They deal with domestic issues related to human rights. We have also looked internationally at Islamophobia. They did a great study on that and on the Rohingya in Myanmar. The testimony from Bob Rae is testimony that I will remember forever. Anti-Black racism was a huge study. They have also dealt with private members’ bills — Bills C-55 and C-56. The list of private members’ bills that they’ve dealt with is extensive.
To say that they are just doing studies is incorrect, although the studies they have done are excellent. Sometimes you tack it onto another committee. What was the committee you suggested earlier? Senator Batters said it would get lost. To put it as a subcommittee with a committee that is already one of the most overworked committees, I think, would do a disservice to human rights. I believe that it is a stand-alone committee.
The Human Rights Committee meets on Monday afternoons, which is a terrible time. With the new proposed agenda, it would still meet once a week. We have to look at some of the committees we’ve spoken of today. Fisheries and Agriculture would be other examples. What we have done is that instead of giving them two meetings a week, we’ve given them one three-hour meeting. I think that would help to alleviate many of the concerns we have about the amount of work that committees have.
Senator Black: I know it is not part of today’s discussion, but I would like us to think about the efficacy and efficiency of three-hour meetings versus two-hour meetings. Do we need to talk to somebody about that? I know this is not the topic, but you brought it up. With three-hour committee meetings, I think we would lose people at the two-hour mark. I think we lose them either sitting there or they have other things. That is my personal opinion.
Senator Cordy: We have not had a fulsome discussion on that. I totally agree with your comment that it needs discussion.
[Translation]
The Chair: Just an aside on that. Senator Ringuette and Shaila Anwar put forward a proposal that we’re looking at. We’ll talk about it this week in our Progressive Senate Group committee. We can spend some time on that when we get back from the break.
Let’s go to Senator Batters because we’re going to discuss the Social Affairs Committee with respect to that theme.
[English]
Senator Batters: I wanted to bring up the fact that, on human rights, it isn’t only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that deals with human rights, of course; that is much more dealing with those rights that pertain, in particular, to government entities. Of course, in Canada, we also have the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial human rights codes. That is an important part of the mix, too, which deals with situations that may not necessarily be related to just governments.
[Translation]
The Chair: Let’s go to rule 12-7(11).
[English]
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which may be referred matters relating to social affairs, science and technology.
[Translation]
We’ve already said that the science and technology part will go with transport. Are there any other changes?
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, chair. I am grateful for your indulgence to accommodate my schedule.
If we agree in this committee to remove “Technology” from Social Affairs, and if the “Human Capital Committee” becomes a reality, then we have some space in this committee to think about restructuring it to focus on issues that are still really important for our nation — such as housing, immigration and citizenship, health and welfare, pensions, sport, cultural and heritage affairs, the arts and the bills we get for heritage days that have to be studied. We get an enormous amount of both government and private business. I would advocate for going on a diet, in a way, on this committee and putting a more doable framework and mandate around it.
The Chair: On that matter, I would like us to think more now about the structure of rule 12-7. Let me explain what I mean by that. Maybe it will open some doors to think more like what Senator MacDonald said in some ways — not to wipe the floor completely, but it could open some doors.
Let me explain. My comments, I will make them in English. I may repeat it in French if I’m not able to find the right word in English so that I am well understood.
When you look at our rule 12-7, all the committees are listed. There’s no category of committees, even though — from this list — the first four are managerial committees. They are more questions about how we organize the house.
The other ones are thematic committees. Even within those thematic committees, we heard from the chair and deputy chair that some of these committees mostly do legislative work. They don’t have much time for studies.
Other committees, on the other hand, don’t do much legislation. They do a lot of studies. We have the data on that. During the break next week, Ms. Anwar will be producing data on each specific committee with the percentage of hours done for legislative work and studies.
Having said that, we know, from the reality, that at least two committees could be called standing committees on legislative work on legal, constitutional or finance because with those two committees — Legal and Constitutional and Finance — most of the hours spent in committee are spent in relation to the legislative work that we do. Other committees also approach some of these, like Social Affairs.
We’ll have the data for our next meeting, with the list of how many hours are spent proportionally for legislative work and studies. Why is it important? It is important because our mandate — our mission in the Senate — as senators, is to study legislation and then to propose some avenues to answer the needs of Canadians in terms of public policy. We could divide it into those two groups for committees.
If you look at what other senates in the world do, many senates are organized by recognizing the legislative, research and study work. They are organized by these two items. That could bring us some interesting ways to progressively transform our institution and to make our work more efficient.
The Rules we have recognize that committees can be legislative, special, thematic or managerial — they don’t recognize the managerial item. Rule 12-10 talks about committees which can be special and legislative committees. Rule 12-10 is completely out of rule 12-7. If we organized our committees into one big chapter, 12-7, with four titles, we could start thinking in other ways.
Next week, when we have the data, maybe we will produce to you at the same time a stylistic way to think about our committees. Briefly, what I’m saying is that if we organize our work into having legislative committees — Legal, Finance — we could have a committee on legislative work for the economy, technology, communications or environment, natural resources and agriculture.
We could organize our legislative work into six big committees which would deal with government legislation, C bills and S bills. We could have a thematic committee that could meet, not necessarily every week, but every two weeks to do exclusively research-oriented work referred by the Senate.
It could open us up to some changes without having our chairs of committees being completely shaken up because they would still have their committee to chair for special studies. It would be understood. If we were doing that, maybe we would enjoy more legislation. We would develop expertise in some committees about legislative work. Let’s talk about that next week with the data we will have.
We will have to recognize the fact that over the last couple of years we have received more bills and have had more bills on our plate. The output each year is about the same. When you look at the data prior to 2018 and you look at the data now, we see that the bills that are tabled in the Senate have increased. We do roughly the same number of bills that we study in committee and that we report on in the Senate. In other words, time is limited. Even though we have a lot of bills, we cannot pass on the output or bring to the Senate more bills to be approved.
These are the kinds of issues we need to take into account when we revise this rule about all those committees. For the moment, the committees do receive bills and do studies. Sometimes, in some committees, there is tension between bills that we receive and the study we do in committee. Maybe this tension is not creative.
If we do recognize that legislative work could be done — we could be organizing our work differently — maybe it will give us oxygen to do the research and the study of bills.
Senator Yussuff: On behalf of the committee, is it possible to ascertain how much of the committee’s time is spent on government bills, private members’ bills and also on studies? If we could segregate it, it would give us a better appreciation for where the time is spent so we could have that as part of our thinking on how we may want to consider it.
Ms. Anwar: To let you know, we’re putting together statistics for each of the committees on the number of meetings, hours and witnesses for government bills, other bills, pre-studies and special studies for the last two fiscal years. Then we’re comparing it to the 2018-19 fiscal year because the pandemic years are not reflective of the normal work. We keep those statistics anyway. Breaking it down by committee takes longer, which is why it wasn’t ready for today.
[Translation]
The Chair: If there are no further comments for now, we can talk about our last standing committee, which we haven’t discussed. It’s very important, but I was worried about the time.
Here’s what it says in the Rules:
12-7. (17) the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence, and Veterans Affairs, to which may be referred matters relating to national security, defence and veterans affairs generally.
As you know, this committee meets on Mondays. There’s also a very important subcommittee to that committee, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: I’ve been on this committee pretty much since I came to the Senate. Our time is mixed when we have legislation. Recently, did Bill C-20. Before that, we were studying a number of other bills. We also spent a lot of time on a significant study on Arctic security that took a bit more than a year and we produced a report.
I also sit on the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, an active subcommittee. It produced a study on how we deal with challenges that our veterans are dealing with in regard to issues of trauma from war. We produced a study on the use of psychedelics that might help in that regard. Leading up to the start of the Senate again, we’re now looking at doing a study on homelessness for veterans. This committee met last night and spent three hours of our time. We’re looking at the Ukrainian situation and assessing what’s going on there in cybersecurity, and so on.
The committee is quite busy. A good part of our work is not so much on legislation but in doing other studies that are equally important for current issues faced by the nation.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think most of the concerns had to do with the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. When the chairs were here, they asked us to increase the size of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs so it could be more representative of the regions.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I find the mandate is pretty good with regard to restrictions and I find it’s very focused.
My comment is not with regard to the mandate. We’ve heard time and again about the difficulty of meetings, although most of the time they’re four-hour meetings. Ms. Anwar has the data which indicates that most committees meet for three hours at the most, even though they have four hours to meet. The difficulty is in having broader geographic representation if it’s on a Monday.
The Chair: We’ll take that into consideration.
Senator Omidvar: Perhaps you could help clarify my confusion, Madam Chair. When we talked about the Social Affairs Committee, you indicated that we were going to move away from mandates and talk about structure and therefore —
The Chair: It’s just that no one was talking about the structure.
Senator Omidvar: We are now back to talking without mandates?
The Chair: It’s specifically for National Defence. When we talk about structure, there were no words, no comments, no end. Instead of saying, “The meeting is terminating,” we forgot about it.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: Do you have any comments on the structure? We are back on the structure because I think we’ve said all we can about the mandate. We heard you. We’ll have a draft of the modifications of rule 12-7. We’ll include 12-10 in it and we’ll be discussing the whole thing, mandate and structure, with data about what the committee does in terms of legislative work versus study work. I think that’s an important consideration because we have a lot of bills and for the moment we don’t have time to look at all of that.
Maybe we have to reorganize our work so that we are more balanced between our two missions, which is the study of legislation and the study of topics that are important for Canadians. Instead of talking about rule 12-7 as we did, let us discuss it within subdivisions where you have managerial committees, legislative committees and thematic committees. We may have room to have special committees eventually — that is, once in a while.
That’s the approach I want to bring to you next week. Maybe it will be easier then to have a fresh look at our titles, especially when we look at the legislative aspect of our work.
Look at what other countries do. Those that I’ve looked at proceed largely with dividing or underlining their legislative work and their research work. That could be an interesting option to look at.
If there are no comments, we will give you some specific details next week. Hopefully, we’ll be able to send this to you beforehand because we’ll be on a break next week. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)