THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:34 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 and 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.
Before we delve in, I’d like to ask senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Good morning. I am Jane Cordy. I am a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: My name is Bev Busson, from British Columbia.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you all for being here. Before we begin, I have an important message about being very careful because there have been incidents with interpreters. To prevent acoustic incidents, I’m going to read the following message.
Before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of the following important preventative measures.
To prevent disruptive — and potentially harmful — audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.
As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents: All earpieces have been replaced by a model which greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback.
The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use a black approved earpiece.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.
When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down, on the middle of the round sticker that you see in front of you on the table, where indicated. Please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Participants must only plug in their earpieces to the microphone console located directly in front of them. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
Thank you all for your co-operation.
You’ll probably be hearing this message during other committee meetings this week.
We have a lot on the agenda today, and I hope we’ll make some progress in our work. We have quite a few decisions to make, but we won’t be making them today. I want to remind everyone of that. Today, we’re going to touch on a number of topics, and we’ll be making decisions at our May 21 meeting.
We won’t be studying Rule 12-7 next week. Instead, we’ll be looking at delayed answers and rules about delayed answers and written questions. Next week, we’ll have witnesses from the House of Commons and the Privy Council Office. I’ll be away, so Senator Batters will be chairing next week’s meeting.
Today I’d like to touch base with all of you about your consultations on the timeline proposed by Senator Ringuette and Shaila Anwar for the pilot project that would start in September, ideally, and go until the end of the session. We’ll start by hearing from everyone.
Then, we’ll discuss Rule 12-7 on the committee mandates, structure and membership.
I’d like us to dig into this topic so we can at least get some important suggestions out there that the analysts, the clerk and I can look at to prepare some proposed changes to the Rules. I’d also like us to report to the Senate on these issues before the start of June, if possible, or in the first couple of weeks of June at the latest.
[English]
If everybody is okay with this agenda, we will first talk about the proposed calendar for the committees.
Senator Batters: On the agenda, it actually says that’s going to be the second item. Don’t we want to proceed with our first item first?
The Chair: You would prefer that we take it later? Okay, we could do that.
Senator Batters: Usually we’d go with the order of the agenda.
The Chair: Yes, but I thought it was decided that you were supposed to have a roundtable. If you are not ready to speak, others may want to. I would like to clear that up because we have a lot of things to consider, and I want to make sure that I at least have a view of whether this calendar could go forward or not.
Senator Cordy: Yes, we had a discussion at our caucus. It seems like a long time ago. We have been off for a break week.
First of all, thank you very much, Senator Ringuette, for really pushing this, and Ms. Anwar, who appeared before our committee, for all the work that you did. When you are bringing something like that to a committee, sometimes people don’t recognize the number of hours that are used just to get it brought forward for discussion. Thank you very much for doing that.
Our caucus was very pleased that we are looking at committees. Some committees have been doing the same kind of things with the same number of hours for a long time. When we had in front of us the number of hours that committees sat, the number of studies that they did and the number of pieces of legislation that they dealt with, it was clear that some committees needed more time than other committees. That’s not to say that one committee is more important than another, but it is just the reality that some committees do get a lot of legislative work before them. Our group was very pleased to have that discussion.
If this committee suggests that we do a pilot project, we would be most firmly behind it. If we do a pilot project, there may be things, when that starts, that would have to be tweaked, and that’s understandable. The feeling was that we have talked about this for years and years, so let’s just get on and see what works and what doesn’t work with the timetable, the number of hours for different committees and those kinds of things. We’re ready to go whenever.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Are there other people from other groups or caucuses that have an opinion on this calendar that has been proposed? ISG?
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Ringuette made the consultation on our behalf.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Cordy, thank you very much for your kind words in regard to the effort and time that was spent. Shaila deserves most of the credit for having all the logistics put in place.
Three weeks ago, at ISG, I brought this issue forward, with copies of the statistics and a copy of the proposed pilot committee schedule. I must say that the comments were overwhelmingly in favour, particularly the fact that this is a pilot and subject to be reviewed a year from now. At that time, we can see if we keep the pilot when we have the next parliament or if we go back to the old, current ways of committee meetings. That is certainly alluring.
I am thrilled that senators are open to issues of efficiency. Of course, these efficiencies will provide flexibility for special committee meetings or urgent issues that need to be dealt with. That will provide us with 12 hours of interpretation and 12 hours of committee space, in addition to what we have. The statistics prove that the current 2 hours for most of the committees — except three: Legal, National Finance, and SOCI. For most of the committees, the stats indicate that the work could have been done in one three-hour meeting. That’s the comments from our ISG group.
Many of my colleagues are especially pleased with the fact that the Monday committee meetings issue will be resolved. Of course, because of our Order Paper being denser than in the last few decades, we sit more on Tuesday evening. Unfortunately, we have committees that, with reason, were very frustrated that, at the last minute, they had to cancel their meeting and their witnesses that had been called. It is not a proper place for an institution like us to be in. Those two major issues would also be resolved in addition to the efficiencies that we’re going to get.
My group is ready to move forward with a pilot for September.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Ringuette.
Are there any observations from the Conservative caucus or the Canadian Senators Group?
Senator Batters: I can go, but if the Canadian Senators Group representative would like to go before me, that’s fine.
The Chair: Did the Canadian Senators Group have some consultation within your group?
Senator Black: I can defer to my colleague, but I will say that we have not discussed it yet. We have not taken the time to do it. I can offer some personal comments, not as the CSG group.
My personal comments would be that I’m concerned about the three-hour time blocks. I would like to hear from learning specialists — I don’t mean from within, I mean from without — who can tell us that a three-hour block of time is a good amount of time to sit and listen and work with our witnesses. My concern is that we will lose people, if not out of the room, out of mind, after two hours. That’s my concern. That’s not a CSG concern.
The Chair: I don’t want to open the debate because the consultation has been made, but I will hear those who want to speak. Before we open, we’ll hear what the Conservatives have to say.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
First of all, this was presented to us three weeks ago. We got the agenda just five minutes before the presentation started. During that meeting, I raised a number of different concerns with this proposal and National Finance Committee, which is a large committee and a very important committee, which overlaps entirely in time with the caucus meeting of the biggest group, the ISG, and which also starts during Conservative national caucus which goes until noon on Wednesdays.
I also raised the concerns of a Wednesday for several members of our group that would mean 13 hours straight of meetings with caucus meetings, Senate committee meetings, Senate sittings and then more Senate committee meetings. Certainly we all work hard, but there needs to be a little bit of time in our days to be able to prepare for other meetings, Question Period and all of these other types of things. That allows absolutely no time for any of that, as well as having large committees meet all at the same time, which could create a considerable overlap of members.
Another major concern I had was having several of the Senate’s committees, which currently meet twice, two hours each, reduced to once a week. I said that I would be curious to hear what those committee chairs and deputy chairs would think about that, because it could leave the impression of relegating certain committees to a second-class scenario.
I raised all of those different things. I thought I might hear some resolution or answers for some of those. We haven’t. We haven’t had a further discussion at this committee since then.
The major factor we’re facing in the chamber, we in the Conservative caucus are facing, is an omnibus Rules change motion, which does considerable damage, we feel, to the opposition in whole. In light of that, we’re not inclined to undertake a pilot project with respect to changing our committee structure at this time.
The Chair: Thank you.
I don’t want to open the whole debate today. I want to have a roundtable discussion to have a feeling about what you thought about it. We have heard some of that. For those who want to make comments, we may take five minutes to hear you, but then we will close this. We know what it looks like. We will come back to it on May 21.
Senator Omidvar: I want to respond to Senator Black’s concern about presence of mind in three- to four-hour meetings. I sit regularly on a Monday evening meeting. We regularly go to four hours. Our reports have been adopted into legislation. We are able to do our work without losing our minds. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wells: Thanks very much. That’s a fair comment, Senator Omidvar. Not everyone lives in Toronto. I live in Newfoundland. In order for me to get here at a reasonable time on any day that I fly, I have to get up at 3 in the morning. By the time evening rolls around, I would find a three-hour meeting taxing, even at my young age.
Senator Saint-Germain: In support of Senator Wells’s point, one of the issues that was raised and why we have this proposal that we no longer have committees sitting on Mondays is especially because people are coming from provinces in Eastern Canada, mid-Canada and Western Canada. They have a lot of expertise as well. Very often, we are deprived of their expertise because they cannot leave home on Sundays in order to attend a meeting on Monday evening. This is also a matter of respect for the importance of having diversity and regional representation in these committees. This is why this proposal has been made. I believe that it is really important that we respect this representation and expertise.
The Chair: Thank you. We will close that for now.
We will now start the main subject of this meeting, which is to discuss rule 12-7, the mandates and the structure. You were sent some of my preliminary remarks. It is a draft. It is not to be circulated. I wanted to be completely transparent about what I thought could be a good thing but I cannot attack now because it would be too long a process, which is the structure of our committees.
As you know, and when you read what is going on in other Senates in the world, many Senates have different kinds of committees. They have legislative committees and thematic committees. They also have special committees, as we do. We have legislative committees, as it says in rule 12-10, but we don’t use this disposition. What we do here in our Senate in Canada is that the thematic committees do research and bills. Looking at how we achieve things, I thought it could be good to separate legislative committees from thematic committees because it could give all senators the possibility of attacking legislative work. Also, because there would be more legislative committees than we have now reviewing government bills, it would give each senator a way to fine-tune their skills on legislation.
Having said that, this kind of reform needs to be well thought and well documented. It needs witnesses to see how they work elsewhere and so forth. I don’t think we’ll have the time to do that until June or the beginning of September, so now the focus should be more on the mandates of our committees listed in rule 12-7 in a way that we transform the mandate or do some fine-tuning so that they represent better the challenges of the 21st century. Some of those committees, as you know, were created in the 19th century. Banking has the same title as it had from the beginning. We didn’t have a Canadian dollar then. The Bank of Canada was not created. The financial and banking system was at the heart of growing an economy and commerce. Nowadays, transactions are made with cards. There are other things needed now for the Canadian economy to prosper, and we don’t have a committee focused on that. I don’t mean that we will have a committee on that, but at least the Banking Committee, which is doing work on the economy, could have a title that is more appropriate to the 21st century. Those are the kinds of changes I would like to propose.
On the structure, I don’t want to propose any drastic change. There is a cosmetic change we could make in the sense that, in the Rules, we could have two bold titles under which the committees are listed. One bold title could be administrative committees, because there are at least four committees who do administrative work: CIBA, Rules, Audit and Ethics. They are not thematic committees. They do not do legislative work. If they could be identified per se, that could be helpful, when we work on committees, to understand it is not all 17 committees that have the same kind of considerations. Under another bold title, which would be thematic committees, we could, if we want, distinguish those that deal mostly with legislation and those that deal mostly with special studies. That is one thing we could discuss.
The main change I proposed in the document that was sent to you is option (A) and option (B). Option (A) is no change in the structure. It means no addition to committees. In this option, we separate the work differently among the 17 committees so we have a committee that could be focused on human capital and human resources issues. That’s option (A). It doesn’t add any committees, but it spreads the work that we are doing among committees in another way. Option (B), as you will see, is to create a new committee on human capital, inclusion in the labour market and so forth by having two committees that will meet and alternate their workload, because from the statistics we have, the committees that alternate do less than half the hours of work than the Legal Committee does. So why not? They do less than the average workload that the other committees do.
With regard to my proposition, I want to talk to you about the way I proceeded to make suggestions. They are not propositions yet; they are suggestions. You were sent a document that I myself translated. I wrote it in both French and English. It is called “project.” It is in French first, then in English. They are preliminary comments by me. I will now summarize what I wrote.
The way I proceeded was to list the suggestions in a table at the end of the document, which looks like so. I made an analysis of the statistics that were produced by Shaila, the clerk of the committees. Those statistics are produced yearly and can be found in the publications on the website of the Senate. They are the financial statistics of the committees and spell out the work they do, the budget and so forth.
From these statistics, because it is not published, I asked Shaila to produce statistics are on specific hours addressed by the committee towards legislative work versus special study work. Shaila provided that to us, and I think that you have that mixed table with many numbers. It is not easy to read. You almost need a magnifying glass even if you wear glasses. I used those statistics to produce a resumé or a summary of all that data for the purposes of our analytical work on what the committee does. Do they do legislative work? How many hours do they work? And so forth.
You have this table that Adam sent you. It is this table. It is a synthetic table per committee, excluding the administrative committees. It comprises only the 13 thematic committees. It spells out the total hours of work per committee for three financial years: 2023-24, 2022-23 and 2018-19. I took out the pandemic years because the data was bizarre. We have one pre‑pandemic year and two post-pandemic years.
Of those numbers that are presented in the table, the first group of data is the total hours worked for those three years per committee. As you can see, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is the committee that has put in the most hours of work in the Senate. SOCI and the Finance Committee are also two big committees that have done a lot of work. The average hours of work per committee for 2023-24 is 47.8 hours. I have highlighted in bold the numbers that were above this average. You can see that AGFO has been working above average. In 2023-24, APPA is the same, as are Transport and Communication and Security and Defence.
There are two other groups of numbers. The first is the legislative work in percentage of the total hours of work. The legislative work means government and public bills. We could also have specific data for government versus public work. That gives us an idea of the committees that are doing a lot of legislative work. That is our prime mandate, as you know.
On the top of the list, as you can see, is Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I would say with Finance, the numbers hide the fact that, within Finance, when they study the expenditures of government, it is in relation to the adoption of the supply bill. It is sometimes treated as a study, but it is not really a special study. I would say that Finance is mostly a legislative committee. As you can also see, SOCI has been doing a lot of legislative work. The numbers speak for themselves. Some committees do not do much. There can also be variations between years and the subject of the day. For instance, I remember the Transport Committee had a big government bill that took many hours to study, so that significantly affected the statistic.
The final group is the percentage of work of the total for special studies. You can see that, in some committees, most of what they do is special studies and they do not study legislative work. It is the mirror or the other side of the moon, if you will.
I based my suggestion for changes in the mandates on that data, considering that some committees work above average, others below average, some committees only do special studies and others do legislative work. They are also based on what we heard from witnesses among the different committees, which was that there is a need for changes in our mandates because our mandates — when you look at our rules and on the website — don’t show that we are in the 21st century. They forget about some areas that are really important. That is the human resources factor in our work. Those are the economic factors, and there are others too.
The suggestion I made has the objective of opening up the possibilities for committees to do very relevant work. That was my main objective. You have to remember that, at the end of the day, the order of reference that the committee receives always comes from the Senate. The suggestion I propose for discussion is to open up the possibility to adapt our work — whether it be special study or legislative work — to reality.
Finally — and I am at the end of my preliminary remarks — I worked with a document that was produced by the analyst. It was sent to you. It is a resumé of the last meeting on the structure and mandates where we had the first roundtable. I used that document, especially their table, to put some suggestions at the end. It is not in the analyst’s document; it is in my document. When we are working, you can read the original way that committees are detailed in our rules in the analyst’s document, and you can find my suggestion for discussion, and this is only for discussion because I know I do not have la science infuse. I have only one perspective, and there are 15 people around the table and everyone has their own perspective. This is here for debate and here to change. It is only to start something so that we can come up with a proposition of change. It doesn’t mean that it has to be that. I want to be clear on that.
With that, I am finished. Do you have comments on that? We can start the discussion with the rule 12-7 and start with CIBA, AEFA and OLLO. Those are the first on the list. You have a document you received from the analyst, which is called — It was sent on April 22. If you don’t have it, that is okay. You have another document that you have received, which are my preliminary remarks. On page five of those preliminary remarks, you have a table. The table is the list of our committees, with my suggestions. It includes all the committees that are listed in rule 12-7, starting with CIBA. Do you have that document? It is both in French and English. Perfect.
As you can see in the suggestions I made, we agreed the first committee, CIBA, doesn’t change. It stays as it is. We also agreed, from the analyst’s document, that the rule doesn’t change either.
We agreed that CONF wouldn’t change. Agreed.
We agreed that the Audit Committee would not change.
We are now with OLLO. There was no suggestion for the OLLO committee mentioned in our last meeting. I didn’t make any suggestions. I looked at the report we tabled on all the chairs we heard, and there was no suggestion either. Do you have any suggestions, or do we leave it as it is for the moment? We can always come back. We can go through the list first and then come back to OLLO, if you would like.
Senator Woo: Can you remind us of the statistics on the sitting hours of OLLO and so on?
The Chair: Thank you. OLLO has below-average hours of meeting, but we have to say that OLLO meets on Mondays. OLLO meets once a week. On average, it does fewer hours. OLLO mainly does studies. They do not do much legislative work. When you look at the data, in 2023-24, 23% of their hours were on special studies. In 2022-23, it was 43%. In 2018-19, it was 0%, so 100% was special study work.
It is a committee, as you know. I will read the title.
[Translation]
The Rules say that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages may be seized with matters relating to official languages generally.
Senator Mégie: The committee meetings were being held on Mondays, so they overlapped with the rules committee meetings. I think they were switched to Wednesdays for the pilot project. That was a concern for me because I felt I’d have to choose one or the other.
However, when I look at the House of Commons set-up, I see that they have an official languages committee, too. They haven’t had to study other aspects relating to official languages apart from Bill C-13, so I wonder if we want to hang on to the idea of an official languages watchdog in all this. We’ll have to take all that into consideration so as not to put everything on one side.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Ringuette: I have to say that, in my former life as an MP, I was part of the joint House-Senate official languages committee. The short-, medium- and long-term perspectives of our two groups are definitely very different. That is why each house now has its own official languages committee.
As an argument in favour of maintaining the status quo for the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I would also say that the federal framework for hearing grievances from official language communities — anglophones in Quebec and francophones in other provinces — is relatively weak. This is an important issue in terms of our mandate for minority representation. It transcends a thematic committee. This is a constitutional issue. It’s about upholding the Constitution and being able to get comments on various issues that affect official language communities, and goodness knows there are a lot of issues. Madam Chair, based on my experience and the work done by the Senate committee, I believe the status quo must be maintained.
The Chair: Perfect. For now, we can decide that’s how it’ll be, and we can look at how to organize the schedule later. As I suggested, we do have the option to leave the number of committees as is with the same number of hours allocated to all the committees, but we can also decide to alternate groups so we have more choices in terms of themes.
We might run into some issues with resources, but that’s probably manageable based on my conversation with the person in charge of committees.
Let’s move on to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which sent us a specific request to add the word “development” to the committee’s name. My suggestion was to include it.
There were also suggestions about adding international human rights to the committee. I just took all the suggestions for this one and put them together to come up with this:
… to which may be referred matters relating to foreign relations and international trade generally and international human rights.
That will have repercussions on the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, of course. Option A would be to no longer have a specific human rights committee, and to reallocate the human rights hours to human capital and inclusion, because that doesn’t exist. Option B would be to keep studying human rights, but the committee meetings would alternate.
I’d like your comments on the suggestion to include the word “development”, as the committee requested, and on adding “international human rights”.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: I don’t know if you want me to get into everything that I feel about the discussion regarding RIDR right now or if you want me to wait.
The Chair: You can speak right now, point by point.
Senator Ataullahjan: What does “human capital and inclusion” mean? I am sorry; English is not my first language.
The Chair: “Human capital” is all the human resources. It is the labour market. “Inclusion” means the fight against discrimination. As we know, the perfect way to fight discrimination is to include people in the labour market and to make a place for them. “Human capital” is in SOCI but they do not have time to talk about it. It includes training, the Labour Code, EI and, from the perspective of minorities, all of the discriminatory situations where you try to include people in the labour market. It is not the study of rights but the study of how to include people in the labour market.
Senator Ataullahjan: My issue is that it is very narrow. If you look at the mandate of RIDR and the studies that we have done — and I said this in my testimony — the Human Rights Committee used to be a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee but then a decision was taken to make it a standalone committee. I’m puzzled, dismayed and disappointed that we’re having this discussion when you look at the work that RIDR has been doing. We have a few senators who sit on RIDR. If some of the other committees are so busy, I feel that human rights issues are going to just fall by the wayside. I will discuss more when we get to RIDR. Thank you.
Senator Batters: With respect to the suggestion specifically on the Foreign Affairs Committee that we’re talking about right now and dealing with this issue of adding a large component of the Human Rights Committee’s mandate into this, it says right in the analyst’s summary of testimony with respect to the discussion of the members of our Rules Committee, “some members disagreed with this suggestion as the topic of international human rights falls within the Human Rights Committee’s mandate.” Yet, with the two options that are being presented here, Option A is basically eliminating the Human Rights Committee and dividing it up between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Legal Committee. I will have more to say about that later when dealing with the Legal Committee. The other option is having the Human Rights Committee only meet once every two weeks. I do not think that either of those is very conducive to a Senate that is supposed to be dealing with minority rights.
The Chair: I understand that. It is a suggestion, so we will see.
I know that it will be very hard to have unanimity in all of these decisions that we will have to make. We will be able to think about it because we won’t decide today. We will be able to talk to each other and to have a consensual position on May 21.
It has been referred to the Human Rights Committee, but they do not do much legislative work. They do important work. They do mostly special studies. In the last year, 94% of the hours were on special studies; the year before, it was 96%; in 2018-19 it was 72%. This committee is quite focused on studies, and we have a lot of legislative work to do. We know we have a problem, but we will try to find a solution.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Human rights are extremely important. They’re constitutional rights, and I’m concerned about the fact that a number of committees don’t seem to be taking them into account because it’s in the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ mandate.
What would happen if agricultural workers were abused by the system or exploited, underpaid or housed in deplorable conditions? Would that be an issue for the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, or would it be for the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights? Doesn’t it make more sense for human rights to include the labour market and all the inclusion and integration conditions? That’s just one example, but I can think of others, such as the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communication, which looks at comparable situations.
Make no mistake, esteemed committee members, the committee is doing excellent work. However, I feel that human rights are being confined to another committee despite being such fundamental, constitutional and cross-cutting issues.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I want to go back to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the proposed changes. I am on the steering committee. We made it very clear that we would like the words “international development” added, but we have no interest at all in adding “human rights” to that committee. That is certainly not our intent. We do not want it on the committee. I have to put that on the table again. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: I agree with the comments made by Senator Saint-Germain that, even if “human rights” isn’t in the title of your committee, every committee has a responsibility to look at things from the perspective of human rights. At the Social Affairs Committee, we are doing a study on migrants and looking at the human rights of migrants. With the Foreign Affairs Committee, it’s the same thing. If you are looking at peace and development in countries, then you are looking at human rights. While it’s not in the title, the Foreign Affairs Committee is looking at issues related to human rights. My fear about putting it in the title of the Foreign Affairs Committee is that it diminishes the Human Rights Committee itself. I think there is room for both. Many committees have to look at things and there will be crossover. It doesn’t have to be in the title, but there will be crossover for human rights. The Human Rights Committee itself looks specifically at issues that come up in Canada’s human rights commissions, or the Rohingya crisis — that’s one that always sticks in my mind, which was only one committee, but the impact that it had was incredible. I don’t like the idea of “human rights” being the title for this committee. That’s not to say that the committee will not look at things through the lens of human rights.
[Translation]
The Chair: I may have forgotten to draw your attention to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s stats. This is another committee that doesn’t study a lot of bills. Total time by percentage was 10% in 2023-24, 13% in 2022-23 and a little more in 2018-19 at 46%. In terms of hours spent in committee, they’re about average.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I want to talk about the issue of the Foreign Affairs Committee wishing to have “development” in the name. The development component of Foreign Affairs involves a lot of taxpayers’ dollars on a yearly basis, and the development projects, as far as I have witnessed in different places in the world, can be economic, can be in regard to democracy, can be in regard to equality of citizens, i.e. human rights, women’s rights, girls’ rights to education and so forth. It is a huge component in regard to our involvement outside of this country and how we are viewed. I am a little bit confused why some members of that committee do not see the international human rights component of the development envelope within Foreign Affairs. That is not a new component, but it is getting bigger. Some of it is direct. Some of it is indirect, through different NGOs, but it still matters. I also believe that a study should be done in regard to the value for the money that we provide for human rights and women’s involvement in those communities and in these countries. We are not only dealing with international trade, so I beg to differ in regard to some comments around the table.
Madam Chair, I agree with your proposal — “development and human rights.” I cannot remember when the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee really did an extensive view of — it is a third of the Department of Global Affairs, and it is something happening in every foreign country that we have an embassy in. I agree, and I reinforce your suggestion, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Very briefly, I would like to speak to horizontality. In an ideal world, every committee should look at every study and every piece of legislation through the lens of gender rights, human rights, Indigenous rights, minority languages, et cetera. My experience tells me, though, that it requires a certain level of maturity in the institution to actually embed that horizontality into its work, and my gut tells me that the Senate is not there yet, which is why we need committees like OLLO, APPA and RIDR.
Senator Yussuff: Very briefly, when you think of the international challenges we face around the world right now, we can start with Darfur. We know the abuse that is happening in Darfur is not just a war going on, but a war and extreme human rights abuses going on to women and men and children based on their ethnicity. The fact that we have a Foreign Affairs Committee that would not look at that in its context would be, to me, quite astounding. The reality is you can’t separate these issues from our foreign affairs relationships in terms of Canada’s role on the global stage. It would seem natural that human rights is embedded in the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is not separate. I don’t know how you would think it is separate. Whether you acknowledge that in the title or you don’t, I think it is a reality of the history of what Canada has been about and how it continues to use its voice at the UN and other places around the world to say that we have to deal with these issues. In some cases, it has defined our relationship with other countries because we raised these issues to some degree.
On the domestic front, a challenge for us to come to terms with at the Senate is that human rights on the domestic front has not been a new thing. This country’s history is not one that we can be proud of, but it has been one of a violation of human rights, the most fundamental being against First Nations and Aboriginal peoples in this country. If you speak about ethnicity, this whole country’s history has been embedded in this racism against ethnic communities who have come to this country. The work that’s been done on that committee is not so much legislative; it has to give some guidance to our moral compass about the things that we ought to be looking at and looking in a very serious way at how we can improve our way of dealing with these issues in the context of the Senate but also in the context of Canada. I agree with my colleague Senator Saint-Germain. It’s fundamental as part of the Constitution, but it is also fundamental in the context of provincial rights. We have Human Rights Commissions whose job is to promote adherence, both regarding the way people are treated in their public relations with their status but also how they are treated in employment on a day-to-day basis. Not so long ago in this country, if you were Black, you couldn’t rent an apartment just because of your skin colour, and that was legal. It changed because the law was changed. We evolved. Women couldn’t do certain jobs in this country because of their gender. That changed because the law was changed. We have to find a way to explicitly deal with these issues in the Senate. Right now, we have committees that have historically been created to deal with these issues, and sometimes some points have been missing, and of course, we have evolved to say that we need to find a better way.
In the context of how we are going to update these committees, I think we take a holistic view, and while it may not be welcome by every committee, I think it is fair to have that discussion before we agree because, if this is a moment to update the committees’ reflection of the changes in our thinking, it would be good to do it properly and be as broad and inclusive as we can. Otherwise, we will go through the process but not necessarily change very much and the status quo will remain. I take your point earlier that the Banking Committee is a classic example of that. If that’s an intent about the status quo — that we are not going to change very much and there will still be a Banking Committee — does it really change in its orientation? Maybe; maybe not. I don’t know. I’m on that committee. I know most of what we deal with, and quite often, I scratch my head. The reality is that it could be different, in my view.
The Chair: Okay. So we can leave it now and move on to another point, and we’ll come back later.
Finance, I agree. I think it should stay the same. I don’t see how we could move it differently. Maybe I should read it.
[Translation]
12-7. (7) the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which may be referred matters relating to federal estimates generally, the public accounts and reports of the Auditor General, and government finance generally;
Nobody suggested any changes. I propose leaving it as is.
That brings us to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, “to which may be referred matters relating to transport and communications generally”.
By way of introduction, as you know, there has been a lot of discussion about this committee. I have a proposal based on the recommendations and suggestions made during our last meeting.
[English]
It would read, “The Standing Senate Committee on Infrastructure and Technology may be seized of any matter concerning infrastructure and technology in general, including public transit.” Why include public transit? Because it is an important part of our means of how to fight climate change. I think our rule changes should be made regularly in the future. Every five years, we should fine-tune our work, picking different words and so forth. It was mentioned somewhere that public transport should be discussed. It’s a suggestion, as I said, but the term “infrastructure and technology” was suggested by some of you last time.
Senator Batters: First of all, yes, I was curious why including “public transit” would be incorporated into that. The suggestion entirely takes out the word “transportation” from the title of the committee, yet then would include “public transit.” Of course, I come from the province of Saskatchewan, where very large swaths of the province don’t have any public transit because they can’t. It’s not feasible to have public transit with such large distances and low population numbers in different parts. I’m not sure why we would specify that. Also, it’s actually a municipal responsibility, not a federal responsibility, and of course, municipalities are a provincial responsibility, so I don’t know why we would put that right in the subject matter of the committee, especially because we would be taking out the word “transportation” as a whole if this suggestion were adhered to.
The Chair: It was a suggestion by somebody to add “public transport” at the last meeting.
Senator Batters: I don’t remember that, but it’s not a federal responsibility.
Senator Yussuff: Briefly, I do think in the context of federal jurisdiction, interprovincial trade is explicitly linked to interprovincial transportation. We can think of railway and trucking as an example. It is a constant reality of our role and responsibility at the federal level. I do recognize that public transit is important, but in the context of our jurisdiction, we don’t necessarily have any oversight in terms of public transit other than some money that might be, from time to time, in the tax code or that the federal government agrees to. I do recognize it’s important. I just don’t see how it links to our work here as an integral part, given that we don’t regulate it and we don’t necessarily fund it, for the most part, other than what’s going on from time to time in the budget. It’s an integral part of climate efforts, but it is mostly municipal and provincial jurisdiction, to be fair.
The Chair: That’s why I didn’t put it in the title. It was just including, just to mention it.
Senator Ringuette: I understand your intention, but I would tend to agree with Senator Batters’s and Senator Yussuff’s comments. When we talk about federal, when you look at infrastructure, when you look at the bridges, the ferries, the railways and the airlines, you are looking at all of that in regards to the —
Senator MacDonald: Pipelines.
Senator Ringuette: Pipelines. Well, interprovincial pipelines.
Senator MacDonald: Pipelines, when you cross the border, are federal.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. I would not have any problem if the title would be “infrastructure, transportation and technology.” That may reflect our wish to include the transportation aspect of it. That’s my comment.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Woo: I was going to say that.
The Chair: Okay, thank you. We’ll leave it at that.
We go now to Legal and Constitutional Affairs. As I said, this is a big committee in numbers of hours. They do a lot of bills, and they don’t do many special studies. The suggestion is as follows.
[Translation]
This is the actual wording: “to which may be referred matters relating to legal and constitutional matters generally”.
[English]
The suggestion is the title would be the same as it actually is.
[Translation]
We might say that matters relating to legal and constitutional affairs generally may be referred to the committee, but the description would also include the following words:
… may be seized of any matter concerning legal and constitutional affairs in general, including justice and human rights in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That would indicate that the mandate of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs includes the charter and therefore all human rights matters. It’s a clarification, but it wasn’t in the title. It doesn’t add anything to the mandate per se, because the charter already falls under legal and constitutional affairs.
Any comments on that?
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, as you said for this one, the proposal is that the title doesn’t change. The title is Legal and Constitutional Affairs. What is being proposed to be added in this option that is being proposed here is to split up the Human Rights Committee and to have human rights partially added to the Legal Committee, saying in this proposal, “including justice and human rights in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution, and the committee is already called Legal and Constitutional Affairs so it doesn’t add anything to that to add that part in as it’s already always included in there. Certainly, with the many bills that we study, that’s a very important part. Issues dealing with the Charter of Rights frequently arise as part of that.
As well, as you have provided in this chart and stated a few times throughout today, the Legal Committee is the busiest or among the busiest committees that we have in all respects — hours, number of bills done and all of those types of things. I’m not sure why we would add more work to an already overloaded committee.
In the discussion document the analysts provided, the summary, they have some comments saying, as well, that the human rights component, domestically even, would be completely taken care of if we just put it into the Legal Committee and dealt with it because of the Charter. As I previously pointed out, other important human rights policies and laws exist in Canada, including the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as provincial and territorial human rights laws. That’s why I have previously said that to just indicate that it would be all be taken care of if we added it to Legal because they deal with the Charter, it doesn’t encompass only that.
Senator Ringuette: Madam Chair, I believe I remember a few years ago that you had tabled in the Senate or in this committee a list of items that every Senate committee should adhere to or provide a breakdown of the items. Does the bill meet the constitutionality? You had developed a very nice and comprehensive list of items that every committee looking at legislation or doing studies should encompass. May I ask for our next committee meeting that you distribute that to us again? I think that, at the end of the day, this will help in our discussions about the work of committees and so forth.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Ringuette, for reminding me of that, because I had worked very hard on that issue, and new senators don’t know about that. It was a previous Parliament. I did table a motion so that each committee that was studying bills would report automatically with a checklist of what it does for human rights and what it does on all sorts of things. I thought that we didn’t do much justice when you study senators’ or MPs’ bills and we ended up with only one line. We studied the bill and don’t have anything to say. My motion was addressed to all bills, even government bills, but it was never really talked to. Maybe it is time now. It was talked to within the Modernization Committee, where we did talk about it, and we did make a proposition on it. I will probably come up with some information for you in the next meeting.
Senator Ataullahjan: I just want to agree with what Senator Batters said. The Legal Committee is one of the busiest committees and, if we add the human rights component to it, I feel human rights will be put on the back burner. That’s a big concern for me.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that. I will take all that into account. When we will come back, we will have a fresh comment.
I look at the clock, and we want to finish at 11:30. I will be a little bit mindful of the time when you speak, or maybe you could try to put your comment — and I speak too much.
We are at the Banking Committee now.
[Translation]
The Rules say that the committee may be seized of matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally.
[English]
The suggestion for a new title would be the Standing Senate Committee on Industry, Economy and Finance.
Senator Woo: I think we should take out “Finance” so that we don’t confuse it with National Finance, leave it at “Industry and the Economy,” and for the description to say, “any matter concerning industry and the economy in general, including banking and interprovincial trade.” Monetary policy is part of the economy, as already covered. Banking is put it in there kind of as a nod to the historical pedigree of the committee. It is not necessary but you may want to do that. Interprovincial trade is important because it is a big issue and it tends to be overlooked. That is my comment.
The Chair: You said?
Senator Woo: Industry and the Economy.
The Chair: Including in the description?
Senator Woo: In the description, “any matter concerning industry and the economy in general, including banking and interprovincial trade.”
The Chair: Perfect. Thank you. Good.
Senator Wells: Just following on from Senator Woo’s comment, if it is industry and the economy, perhaps there could be consideration to the labour market, a separate committee falling under that category. I’ll just lay it on the table. It is not something I am advocating or otherwise, but it seems to get closer to that topic.
Senator Batters: What does the mandate of the current Banking Committee say right now? I’m just wondering how closely it resembles what the proposal is.
[Translation]
The Chair: The Rules say, “… matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally”.
[English]
Senator Batters: Sorry, could you repeat that?
The Chair: I don’t have it in English in front of me.
Senator Batters: No, it is okay. If you could just repeat it, because the translation —
The Chair: It says, “matters relating to banking, trade and commerce generally.” No, it is economy generally. The title, actually, is Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, and it studies “matters relating to banking, trade and commerce” — doesn’t it have the word “economy” in it? The title is Banking, Commerce and the Economy.
Senator Batters: Right. But the mandate.
[Translation]
The Chair: In the French version of the mandate, the Rules say: “… qui peut être saisi de toute question concernant les banques, le commerce et l’économie en général”.
[English]
But in the English, it is translated as “matters relating to banking, trade and commerce generally.” So there is a mistake, and it is “the economy.”
[Translation]
Adam Thompson, Committee Clerk: It’s correct in English.
The Chair: There’s no “economy”? Yes, the word “economy” is there.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Senators, just for clarity, I will read rule 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 Batters: So no committee then currently has monetary policy as part of their mandate?
The Chair: Oh, yes.
Senator Batters: Who has that?
The Chair: I have been on the Banking Committee since I have been in the Senate, almost, and monetary policy is one of its orders of reference. We receive the Governor of the Bank of Canada regularly because monetary policy has a tremendous impact on the economy. We question him, and it is a tradition. The Governor of the Bank of Canada comes to discuss the economy, monetary policy and everything.
Senator Batters: I understand that. I just wondered if anyone has the specific phrase “monetary policy” in their mandate specifically listed. Does the Finance Committee have that? It sounds like Banking does not have it.
The Chair: No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t need to be there, but I thought because Finance was doing more fiscal and in my mind, when you have fiscal policy, you have monetary policy, so it was balancing the two.
Senator Yussuff: Very briefly, I think it says “trade” but really what it means is internal trade, because we do have — yes.
Senator Ringuette: I’m not known as a traditionalist, that’s for sure. It’s not part of my character. However, that being said, I would like to see the name of the committee being “Banking, Economy and Industry.” Banking was the first and sole committee of the institution for so long that I would feel very bad in removing that particular mandate. I would also say that there are continuous issues being discussed at the Banking Committee, such as the future of banking, open banking and so forth, which is all part of the future of our economy and i.e., industry and prosperity. I would like to see “Banking, Economy and Industry.”
The Chair: In that order?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
We will go to the next one, which is SOCI. SOCI, as I said, is also a committee which does a lot of legislative work. Most of its work is legislative, though, in the past, there was a time when they did a lot of studies too. Nowadays, there are a lot of studies, but 70% of the work was on legislative work 2023-24, 43% the year before and 89% in 2018-19.
It reads “Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.” As you know, there was a lot of discussion about taking out “science and technology.” The suggestion is “Standing Senate Committee on Health, Social and Cultural Affairs.”
Senator Busson: In looking at this committee, from the time I first joined the Senate, I always wanted to be on SOCI. I don’t serve on that committee. It has always been a head-scratcher for me that “science and technology” would go along with important things like housing, immigration and the other things that SOCI, in my mind, is seized with. Distinctly, I see there is a suggestion to add these specifically to their mandate. I am in favour of the suggestion to have “science and technology” referred to whatever Transport becomes and to have SOCI more focused on the important issues listed in the suggestions here — housing, immigration, citizenship, welfare, sports, cultural affairs and those kinds of issues.
The Chair: Those items that you mentioned, by the way, are not in the rule. These are the ways the Senate communicate about social affairs — by listing a number of different topics.
As you know — as I said and I will repeat — the order of reference is made by the Senate, and housing can be debated in SOCI, but it can also be debated in Banking, for instance, as it is, and maybe even in ENEV regarding the code. Anyway, there are many committees that can discuss subjects. That is why we are not inclined to specify all subjects or to itemize. When you itemize, it is restrictive, in a sense.
By taking out “Science and Technology,” it was once said in front of us that we should underline the health issue. That is why the suggestion was to underline the health sector, even though it is provincial. The suggestion was “Health, Social and Cultural Affairs,” which is SOCI but we don’t talk about it. If we talk about it, maybe we’ll know it’s there. Do we want to put it elsewhere and concentrate SOCI only on social and health affairs? This is the discussion I would like you to address.
Senator Batters: First of all, I’m not really sure where else “Cultural Affairs” would go and make a lot of sense.
My question to you, chair, was this: In this proposed mandate description, it specifically says here “including sports” for this one. Why is it necessary to include that specifically when there are many other topics that could be encompassed in this that aren’t specifically outlined but —
The Chair: I agree with you, and I withdraw it. In the suggestion, why did I do that? Probably because I was thinking about our two senators who are winners of big medals. It was a flower for them. It shouldn’t be there. It was mentioned in the list. I agree with you. It is too specific.
Senator Omidvar: I like the idea of keeping it general as opposed to specific. I like the mention of “health.” It is broad. “Social” is very broad. Sports are a part of our culture in this country or in any country. I’m happy with that.
The Chair: Okay, good. The title is “Health, Social and Cultural Affairs,” with no mention of sports. Okay.
We move now to AGFO. AGFO, as I say, is a big committee. We have the chair with us. In the numbers of hours they do, they are on the average. They do mostly research. They do some bills. Most of their time, through the years that are listed here, has been focused on special studies.
On AGFO, there was discussion about forests. Actually, it says the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and they study of matters relating to agriculture and forestry in general. The suggestion here was to call it the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs.
By the way, I have three suggestions here. We did discuss AGFO and POFO a lot. They are related. Depending upon what we do on POFO, it could have an impact on AGFO.
The first suggestion was the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affair. Why rural affairs? It was mentioned the other time. Maybe the duality was a distinction. I think it was Senator Ringuette who mentioned it. I thought it could be in the title so that regions that are isolated could know that there is a place for them in the Senate. Be they in the East, West or North, there is a place for them. It “may be seized of any matter concerning agriculture and rural life in general.” That is the first suggestion.
Another suggestion that was put forward was with the fact that “forests” was there, so why not have all natural resources there? So suggestion two, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. They may be seized of any matter concerning agriculture, natural resources in general, including rurality. If we wanted to put rurality, it could be put there because it is a big thing.
Suggestion three is what it was before: the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries, so it includes fisheries. POFO, as you know, has the lowest numbers of hours of work. It is below average. It is less than half of what the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs works, and it mainly does studies. In 2018-19, when they did 20 hours of work in that year, 43% was for legislative work. It is rare. If they had done as much work as the others, the percentage on legislative work would have been lower. POFO is a space where it could be used differently.
Those are the suggestions I propose. Do you want me to tell you about the suggestion on POFO, because we —
Senator Batters: Not yet. I feel like there is —
The Chair: Okay, we will talk with AGFO and POFO. You can look at it. It is in the table. It is not a surprise.
Senator Batters: My question initially was this: Where did “forestry” go? That is a major part of the Canadian economy too —
The Chair: It is “natural resources,” but we’ll see after.
Senator Batters: Sure, one of many. The proposal here is that forestry as a specified subject matter would be out of the title of any Senate committee. Instead, it would just be encompassed as “natural resources,” whereas right now it is a part of AGFO.
Dealing with the three suggestions for changing this title, I come at this from being from Saskatchewan, which has a large rural population and is very critical to every aspect of life in Saskatchewan. I personally don’t feel like we need to have “rural affairs” talking about rural life or “rurality,” whatever that means, in the title of a Senate committee to just make people in rural regions feel welcome. They will feel more welcome if they have Senate committees that actually deal with agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a very substantial way, not just having those committees meet once every two weeks and have other very substantial subject matters added to their mandate so that therefore agriculture is not as predominant on the Senate committee stage, fisheries is not as predominant on the Senate stage or forestry is not as predominant on the Senate stage.
Also, to suggestion number three about combining agriculture and fisheries in general, we heard people from those committees — including, I believe, the current chair of Agriculture who is here today as one of our members — and they don’t want us to combine those. I feel that when that is the direct evidence that we heard from Agriculture and Fisheries committee members and chairs, I do not think that would be a good way for us to go on this at all.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
I want to put on the record that it is usually the case in all studies that have been done in the past that it is hard for a committee to accept a change to their mandate. It has been the reality. If we don’t change things because those who are there at the moment like it this way, then we will never change. It is very hard to make changes at the Senate in the way we function. That is why we tried, this round, to bring reason with data and with common sense.
Senator Busson: I do serve on the Fisheries Committee, POFO. I would suggest that one of the reasons why the stats are so low for POFO hours is because we are on the Tuesday night conundrum. We have had numerous meetings cancelled because of extending sitting hours in the Senate.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Busson: For reference, I know our chair and I have had to ask for extensions to studies we have done because we have not had the time to deal with witnesses that we would have liked to deal with at the time. We have applied on two occasions, one on the Indigenous rights fisheries study and the other on the seal study that we are bringing out in May.
You need to dig to another layer of those numbers to look at them. We have missed numerous Tuesday nights because of sittings.
Beyond that, to address the issue around weather AGFO and POFO have enough in common to be combined, I totally disagree with that suggestion for a number of reasons. The Agricultural Committee and the cultural backing to all that is agriculture is a totally different culture than the issues around our oceans and the fisheries. It is called Fisheries and Oceans. If you look forward at some of the issues we are dealing with as the ice caps melt, it is not just about fish. It is about a little bit of national security, cultural maintenance of heritage and culture of our coastal communities. There is very little in common when you look at that.
From a forestry perspective, my own feeling is that as you look forward into the future, forestry is going to be treated more like a crop than a natural resource in the future, as climate change becomes more prevalent, and the issue around the growth of trees and how trees are harvested is agricultural issue that we should consider.
The Chair: Thank you.
Which committees are on Tuesday night? It is POFO, AGFO and Environment. Okay. In AGFO, because of the number of hours, POFO is the lowest, AGFO and Environment is — there is a lot to be said on those.
Senator Busson: Those are my comments with regard to our pilot project.
Senator Omidvar: Having no experience either on those committees, I like the proposal. It makes common sense to me that we have a standing committee on agriculture, fisheries, oceans and forests. If we can combine health, social and cultural affairs at SOCI, my goodness, we can do the other one too. This is not simply a matter of adding but at some point also having some efficiencies in the system. I support the proposal.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Black: When we think about natural resources, would mining and pipeline issues come into that too? Oil, gas, pipeline issues? That could be where that goes. That may be freshwater issues, the whole bit.
I like what Senator Omidvar just said about the naming of those ones. I am not a fan of combining fisheries, but that is just my own opinion. Again, we have not discussed this at committee at all. I agree with my colleagues. Thanks.
Senator Ringuette: I still have a big question mark on this one and POFO, and I realize the differences. I also realize that a good portion of the future of the economy for our country will be in the mining domain. That is probably why at our last meeting I didn’t say “rural affairs,” I said “rural economy.”
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Ringuette: That is one issue.
The entire food concept, in my mind, is a combination of agriculture and fisheries and the sustainability of these two. Maybe someone can help me clarify all these and put some parameters on this.
An Hon. Senator: Renewable resources.
The Chair: We may provide you the list of the studies done by AGFO and POFO for the last years so that you see what they are doing. We will provide that for you. It will be good for our discussion on May 21.
Let’s talk about POFO. There was one suggestion here.
[Translation]
Let’s move on to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, Oceans and Natural Resources.
[English]
We could put natural resources with POFO. That is one suggestion. When we do that, then agriculture would be more the rural affairs that was mentioned, or not. That is one suggestion I made, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources, and the other suggestion was the option two, to alternate.
We’re not clear. I’m not clear either what to do with those two committees. If Agriculture takes natural resources, then we’ll have Senator Yussuff to clarify.
Senator Yussuff: You could make an argument that forestry, natural resources, oil and gas and mining could constitute a committee on their own given their importance to the national economy but also in the context of interprovincial tensions that are always prevalent with us. You would separate agriculture and fisheries because they are very different. The struggle has always been, where do you deal with the oil and gas industry? Where do you deal with the mining industry? Where do you deal with the softwood lumber or, for that matter, forestry issues? It is a constant challenge. Those issues come up for us constantly from year to year. They go to committee sometimes, or they are nuanced because we figure that it is the best way to have them deal with it, rather than trying to be more honest by saying that they all fit together as one, as opposed to being housed in a number of different places that don’t make any political sense. That requires, of course, some maturity on our part if we are going to do that.
The point with POFO is a good example. Newfoundland, Labrador and most Atlantic provinces would argue that we need POFO because it gives us space to talk about the importance of that subject in those parts of the country, as it is with British Columbia. But the reality is, of course, does it fit with agriculture? You could argue that you could bring the two things together, but again, you have to get over the fact that people are sensitive to the history of this. We are trying to make sense of how we can best structure the Senate in terms of its work, and, of course, history and the Senate are linked together.
Senator Black: I would like to say that aquaculture would be the farming side, the agriculture side of things — I am sorry if that is what you mentioned — so aquaculture could tie into it.
The Chair: That is a reality in today’s world.
Senator Batters: With respect to aquaculture, it actually does, and I believe that the Fisheries Committee is now doing a study or has in the recent past done a study about that.
First of all, one of the most important roles we have in the Senate is to represent our regions. I feel that potentially changing committees’ mandates to take a committee like Fisheries, which is so important for the Atlantic region and also in parts of B.C. as well, and to propose that it only have meetings once every two weeks really takes away from it, especially if the suggestion is adhered to where it would be Fisheries, Oceans and Natural Resources, which sounds like it would encompass forestry, which is also a large issue, important to our economy and very important for certain regions of the country. We need to take that into account too. That is a very important part of what we represent.
The Chair: I am glad we are talking about that as well. We will be closing soon, but we will talk about the others quickly.
When we look at other Senates in the world and how they deal with that, they have a very long list of thematic committees. However, those thematic committees do not meet regularly. Instead, the orders of reference issued by their Senates call them to do their work. What we do here is very different from others because we are here for a long time. We are senators who are appointed for a long time. We are sitting on thematic committees, nourishing the interest about the theme we are working on. It does not mean that it is the best for Canadians as a whole. We are doing it because we do it all the time. When you look at Senates in the world with those big thematic lists, you wonder why they have that. It is written clearly that they exist, but they are not populated. The theme exists, and they are populated when the Senate calls an order of reference for an in-depth special study by a populated membership. This is what I meant earlier when I said that if we could do a full reform, we could address those issues, but it takes time.
Are there suggestions on Environment?
[Translation]
Now we’re at the Standing Senate Committee on Environment and Climate Change.
[English]
That was my suggestion, and it is actually called Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. This is where natural resources are. They are with the environment. Having sat on that committee, I know that there is always a tension between environment and natural resources and energy. The suggestion was, then, to make a choice to take natural resources out of the environment.
[Translation]
The Rules could say that the Standing Senate Committee on Environment and Climate Change may be seized of any matter concerning the environment, climate change, including the pursuit of carbon neutrality.
[English]
We know that, in the upcoming years, we will have a lot of work to do on climate change. It is a reality. Even though every committee has to talk about it, there needs to be at least one that specifically addresses it. That is a suggestion. I want to hear from you on that. It is a suggestion. You are going to decide.
Senator Batters: First of all, yes, I occasionally sit on that committee. Now we would have energy eliminated from all references in Senate committee titles too. I have a major problem with that, coming from a region where energy is an absolute key to jobs and our economy.
Yes, there is sometimes a tension between energy and the environment. This government likes to say that they need to work together to be successful, so why would we eliminate that? There are many different issues where those two need to work together to achieve good solutions. There are many instances where they are doing that.
Also, in this Rules Committee, I think two or three years ago — not longer than that — we already specifically rejected the idea of adding “and climate change” to the title of that committee. We rejected that a couple of years ago already. I certainly do not agree that we need to put into the mandate of the committee “including the pursuit of carbon neutrality.” That could be an issue at certain points. I don’t think it needs to be an ongoing issue that is included in the very committee mandate when so many other topics are not included in that, including many other issues concerning the environment, and specifically because “energy” is eliminated entirely from the Senate committee title.
The Chair: These are good points to take into account.
Senator Yussuff: Yes. It is fair to acknowledge the tension when you talk about a committee on energy and the environment. We can deal with conflicts or tensions as they exist when you are dealing with committee matters, but it is an issue that does create tension. It varies from time to time. With regard to the history of the Senate, I was not here, but I certainly watched the debates on issues that had to do with changes in public policy, which took a lot of effort.
I do believe that as we are evolving. Climate change is one very broad issue. It is not one specific issue. There are a variety of things that would fall under it. It should be seen as natural to the Environment Committee, but, again, it is not so clear, and it could be a subtext at the committee level.
I don’t understand what natural resources is doing on the Environment Committee, as much as I appreciate it. The bigger argument is that in natural resources, you have mining, which is a huge part of the country’s economy. Energy is a big part of our regional economy in Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. for that matter. The export of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is a part of this reality, as is hydroelectric in Quebec, in the context of export to the United States and other places. Energy is a big part of our economy. We already housed that in a way that makes sense, and you could argue that energy, natural resources and mining could be a new, clear committee with a fair mandate that has a very defined role and responsibility, which may be different than what we have in the Senate right now. It would make a lot of sense, but it also means that we have to think differently. It also addresses the regional parts of our economy that link the national economy together.
The Chair: A good point. We will keep that in mind in the second round of the suggestions that we will make.
Senator Cordy: I have been looking this over and wondering where natural resources — including oil, coal and all of those things — fit in. I like it with agriculture, but that would certainly mean that you would need more than one meeting a week.
There is a conflict. I sat on the Environment Committee for a number of years, and it was constant. It was pursuing the environmental issues, yet at the same time pursuing oil, gas and coal. It was a conflicting situation most times, I would say — not a few times, most times.
I like the idea of it being environment and climate change, or that kind of thing. As a committee, you are dealing with one focus. Where would natural resources go? Is it a separate committee? Could it fit in with agriculture? I’m not really sure. That could be something we could have a discussion about. It has been a long time since I have been on the Agriculture Committee.
The Chair: When we think about it, agriculture talks about aquaculture too.
Senator Cordy: Yes, that’s true.
The Chair: Agriculture, fisheries and oceans, a good fit. Energy, natural resources, another good fit.
Senator Cordy: I have been fighting with — “fighting” is not the right word, suggesting at Fisheries Committee, we have talked about the North, Atlantic Canada and West Coast fishing, but there is a huge fishery in the Great Lakes and Ontario, and that often gets overlooked. I would put that suggestion in for the Fisheries Committee to take up at a later date.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cordy.
APPA, no suggestions.
In closing, we leave the Human Rights Committee, where this space, depending on what we look at, could be used for a human capital inclusion committee. The title could be worked out, and this new orientation where we look at inclusive policy, discrimination instead of rights per se. It is another lens, or we can have an alternate committee.
I heard you. Maybe you have other suggestions. Time is out. Do you have any important comments to make?
Senator Batters: I think we should not discuss this until the next time we’re discussing this topic, rather than try to fit it in, in 10 seconds or less. It’s too important of a topic to fit in.
The Chair: I agree. On this, we will adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)