Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition):

Honourable senators, I am pleased to say a few words in respect of the motion proposed by Senator Oliver. During our discussion on committee chairs and the allocation of seats on committees, Senator LeBreton suggested that we ask the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to review the number, size and mandates of our standing committees.

I readily agreed and encouraged Senator LeBreton to propose the motion that is before honourable senators today, which I wholeheartedly support. I believe that any proposals to modify our existing committee structure should follow our traditional practice of initial and careful consideration by the Rules Committee, which would make a recommendation to the full Senate, where a final decision would be made. Since any changes we might make would have a lasting impact on how we fulfill our legislative responsibilities, it is important that we have confidence that the changes will build on our existing strengths and address our real weaknesses.

Honourable senators, our committees are the jewels in the crown of the Senate. There is universal recognition of and appreciation for the work that is done by Senate committees. I remind honourable senators that at a time when we are considering televising or otherwise broadcasting proceedings in this chamber, there is a well-established and well-functioning system of televising the hearings of our committees. These telecasts likely bring more attention to the work of the Senate than any other aspect of our work.

When asked about the Senate, we all point with justifiable pride to the landmark studies issued over the years on a wide variety of important public policy issues. In many cases, these studies have led to significant legislative initiatives. A most recent example is the establishment of the Canadian Mental Health Commission, as recommended by our Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Honourable senators, Senate committees have a well-deserved reputation for doing world-class work. Like many of you, in my previous life I had opportunity to appear before standing committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. I invariably found that Senate committees were better prepared, less partisan and more willing to allow witnesses the time to address complex issues. The nature of this institution enables the Senate and, by extension, its committees to take a longer range view of public policy issues; to study them over a longer time frame; and to propose longer-range solutions.

The experience and expertise of the senators is an important factor in this work, as is the fact that we can undertake studies extending beyond a single electoral cycle. Not only are we able to utilize the experience and expertise that we have built up in our previous lives but also we are able to enhance and deepen those attributes over years as committee members. Among our colleagues on both sides of the house are those who have unique experience and expertise in many important areas of public life. In no other legislative chamber in Canada would you find a legislator with the knowledge of the intricacies of federal-provincial relations of Senator Murray; with the parliamentary experience of Senator Prud'homme; with the international peacekeeping expertise of Senator Dallaire; with the human rights credentials of Senator Kinsella; with the business experience of Senator Eyton or Senator Massicotte; with the knowledge of the traditions and struggles of our First Nations people of Senator Adams or Senator Watt; with the political experience of Senator Atkins or Senator Smith; with the journalistic experience of Senator Fraser, Senator Munson, Senator Wallin or Senator Duffy; and the list goes on.

Honourable senators all agree that our committees do good work, but nothing is perfect and there is always room for improvement. That is why I am delighted to join with my friend, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in supporting a review of our committee structure and mandates. It is entirely appropriate from time to time to take a fresh look at these issues. Do we have the appropriate number and mix of committees? Are there committees that could be split or combined? Do the issues of the 21st century require the establishment of additional committees? Is there continued justification for having committees of different sizes?

We on this side certainly are not interested in shrinking or curtailing the roles of our committees. On the contrary, we will be looking for ways to extend and expand the roles and influence of our committees. As the Leader of the Government has said, we must always be conscious of the fact that we have been entrusted with the expenditure of scarce financial resources and we must ensure that at all times those resources are managed prudently and that we get real value for money spent. Are there ways in which we could improve these processes?

For all these reasons I am delighted to support the reference and I look forward to the deliberations of the Rules Committee and its report to the Senate in due course.

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators