THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 13, 2024
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:32 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules, and pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Today is Tuesday, February 13, 2024, and we are continuing our work on reviewing the structure and mandate of committees.
My name is Diane Bellemare and I am a senator from Quebec.
Before we go on with our guest, I would invite the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Busson: My name is Bev Busson, and I’m a senator from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m filling in for Senator Woo today.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today we have a distinguished guest who will begin the discussion on rule 12-18; as you all know, this rule has to do with the committee meetings that were held on Tuesday and those that were held on the Monday following a period of adjournment that was longer than a week.
This rule was criticized by our witnesses, who told us all sorts of things. They would like to see this changed.
We heard from some leaders because this rule truly requires the participation of leaders. We need to hear their comments. Today, we welcome Senator Plett, who is the opposition leader in the Senate. Senator Plett, the floor is yours.
[English]
You can speak for around five minutes, and then there will be questions on the table. The period of the discussion will terminate in about an hour, at 10:30. Thank you.
Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to all of you. We’re all probably somewhat tired after a late sitting yesterday. Some of us started at 6 in the morning wherever we were. It was a long day yesterday. Nevertheless, here we are. I want to thank the committee for the invitation, and the opportunity to share my views on issues related to section 12-18 of the Rules of the Senate.
I saw that there was a draft report on your study that had already been circulated, and I hope that my testimony will nonetheless be taken into account in the final draft. I saw that both Senator Cordy and Senator Gold are testifying I think on this same issue after the break week, so I’m sure there will be a lot to be taken into account.
I want to just remind all honourable colleagues here that what I am saying today and my views are not necessarily the views of all of the members of my caucus. As you know, Conservative senators are as independent as any other senator here. In fact, we are not whipped. We do share, however, common values and political alignment when it comes to the Rules of the Senate and how this place should function. We all have our own views on this. One thing we all truly believe in, though, is that the Senate is modelled after the Westminster system and that both the government and the opposition have specific roles to play and should have the tools necessary to allow them to play these roles. That being said, let me just go through the two main issues that we are discussing here today.
Number one, no meetings while the Senate is sitting. The first issue is that committees may not sit while the Senate is sitting. Contrary to the members of the House, senators are expected, in my opinion, to attend all sittings and participate in all deliberations. This, in fact, is the essence of rule 12-18(1). I strongly support this rule. Attendance in the Senate is much better than what we can observe in the House of Commons, and this allows, I think, for more informed debates, as senators have a chance to hear the arguments made by their colleagues.
It is true that this rule, combined with the fact that we have an Order Paper unprecedented in its length, causes issues with the Tuesday evening committee meetings. That’s unfortunate. When the Senate sits beyond 6 p.m. on Tuesdays, committees are cancelled, which can result in considerable expense to witnesses and delay of the work at committees. We understand that.
As Senator Tannas pointed out in his testimony, before the influx of the Trudeau-appointed senators — this government’s appointed senators — the Senate typically rose before 6 p.m. on Tuesdays and committees could regularly meet. I remember when I first came here, we typically rose at 5:30, and there were a lot of negotiations some days on trying to be finished by 5:30 so that committees could meet. Our current problem is a result of 83 public bills on the Order Paper, over 176 motions and 18 inquiries. This is compared to an average of 30 to 40 public bills in previous sessions and even fewer than that only 10 years ago.
The primary duty of senators is to debate and study government bills. The Senate is also well regarded for its comprehensive committee reports on issues of national interest. It is more and more difficult to do this in this Senate. Instead, we are log jamming the system with endless debate on special interest items that are important to a few. I think that any solution to this issue should only be temporary.
This inability for committees to sit on Tuesday evenings is a direct result of the new Senate created by Justin Trudeau when he decided to kick out senators from his caucus for fear they would be involved in scandals about their expenses. This problem may not exist in a few years. When Justin Trudeau leaves this stage, and we know that will happen soon, there will be a realignment of caucuses and the Senate will return to a functioning that served Canada well for over 150 years, and something you will find in democratic Parliaments across the world.
Particularly, should senators insist on having Tuesday evening meetings, the only solution to this at this point would be a sessional order to adjourn Tuesdays at 6 p.m., similar to what we do on Wednesdays.
The second issue being discussed is the application of rule 12-18 which is no Monday meetings after an adjournment of more than one week. It has been suggested that this rule should be abolished to allow committees to meet on Mondays. With all due respect, I beg to differ. I believe that if we simply delete rule 12-18(2) from the Rules it would make it more difficult to have committees meet on Mondays after a break week or during a longer break, such as the summer. I favour keeping the rule as is. It allows the government and the opposition to make sure that those Monday meetings are called at a time that allows their senators to be in Ottawa for the meeting. Ensuring that both the government and the opposition are able to attend committee meetings is an essential part of the democratic process.
I understand that even if the CPC caucus has never unduly used its powers under rule 12-18(2), the mere thought we could do so makes some senators fret. As a gesture of goodwill, I would suggest a solution that we could entertain and discuss. We could have a sessional order allowing committees to meet after a break during their regular time slots on Monday, Mondays that are not a statutory holiday, if they are studying government bills.
In conclusion, colleagues, I think we should be careful before we change the Rules of the Senate, especially rules regarding the powers of the government and of the opposition. Pierre Poilievre will soon be elected as Prime Minister. He will have the daunting task of rebuilding the federal government after the years of rampage under this government. Of course, one institution that will need to be rebuilt is the Senate. We have, therefore, need to be cautious before we cause any further damage to the Senate. That is why I’m not in favour of making more than sessional orders to change rule 12-18.
Anytime you want to make changes such as this they should either be done through a sessional order or at the beginning of a Parliament, not in the sunset of a Parliament that will then push it on to the next Parliament.
I’ll conclude my remarks with a thought. I find it very regrettable that this committee spent so much time and energy in the last five or six years trying to figure out how to reduce the powers of the Senate in general and the powers of the opposition in particular. What is so bad about having opposition voices in the Senate? Why shouldn’t 68% of Canadians who did not vote for this government in the last election, be represented by an organized opposition here?
I hope that the committee will now look into ways that the Senate, including senators who oppose the government, can do their job better. I see, as my last comment here, Madam Chair, that Senator Quinn is up after me on the issue of receiving answers to the questions we ask orally or in writing on a timely basis. This has not been happening. I remind you that even Senator Gold has called upon this committee to act on this particular issue. I certainly hope that you look into that.
With that, Madam Chair, I am happy to entertain questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Plett, for those opening remarks and for being here today to provide this important perspective on these different Senate rules.
First of all, I think you raised a very important point about the differences between the House of Commons and the Senate as far as the general attendance in the Senate chambers. Most parties I’m familiar with, certainly when the Conservatives were in government and in opposition, have a duty roster in the House of Commons, and Conservative MPs have used this in both government and opposition roles. Basically, other than the times like Question Period when there is quite a full house, at many points the House of Commons chamber has probably only about a fifth of the members present, if that, for times of debate. Though they have lengthy debating hours and usually sit five days in the week, that’s the sort of attendance expected in House of Commons because of those duty rosters and the considerations there.
Is that your experience as well, as far as the likely attendance that we would kind of see in those two chambers?
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Batters. Yes, I think I alluded to that, that certainly our attendance in the Senate is so much better than the House of Commons. We saw that last night. We had a full chamber at 11:00 in the evening. Granted, we were going to have a vote and we are going to have a vote and we don’t have hybrid voting.
But without question I think the Senate does a much better job of debating issues. I am a firm believer that we have a duty to be in the Senate Chamber when the Senate is sitting. We are debating important legislation, or we should be debating important legislation. The fact that we have had many single-interest issues arise has created the opportunity for many to say, “Well, I don’t need to be there for that debate.” That is a problem. Many times when I can’t sleep and need something to put me to sleep, I turn CPAC on and watch something in the House of Commons and see there are half a dozen people there, if that, listening to somebody go on.
I fully support that we need to be in the chamber when the Senate is sitting and try to have full attendance when committees are sitting. I do not think they can happen at the same time.
Senator Batters: Thank you. Regarding the topic of Mondays and committees sitting during adjournment periods, another aspect is that right now both the government and opposition leaders need to be in agreement that this happen. But if we didn’t have that rule, could it, potentially, be used by the government to force through bills or study topics at a time when many opposing senators may not be available to do their job to oppose the government on those types of things? It could also be used, potentially, tactically by the opposition if we didn’t have that rule that the government had to agree to it by the opposition to force through embarrassing study areas for the government during a period of time, perhaps even in a summer recess period, when a major issue comes up and then the government would have potentially no way to shut down that type of avenue, if it wasn’t proper?
Senator Plett: Again, good question, and I fully support that. As long as we have a government and an opposition in the chamber, those two entities need to be involved in doing this. You are absolutely right that we as an opposition party have a sworn duty, as does the government.
Even now, we see too often, Senator Batters, where, let’s say, in the Senate, “Let’s defer that vote, because the numbers aren’t here today, and maybe we can get better numbers if we defer a vote until the next day.” That happens. That would certainly happen here as well.
In this particular case, not only does the government and the opposition have the responsibility to approve or reject these committee meetings, we also have the opportunity to attend as ex officio members. That is another reason why these two entities, these two people, need to have that authority.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Let me say that I completely agree with you when you say that our primary responsibility is to be in the Senate, except in cases of force majeure. It is very important that that be the premise of our discussion.
You expressed a reservation about changing the rule, but you are open to us agreeing on certain flexibilities through a sessional order. I will use the word flexibilities. You say that it is normal for all senators to be able to attend the debates of the Senate and that we should therefore not authorize committees to meet when the Senate is sitting.
In reality, there have been some exceptions and we have seen you give your consent to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance or the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when there were bills that needed to be passed because of an approaching deadline or that needed to be studied more thoroughly.
My question is the following. Would you be open to the idea that, in this sessional order, we include this nuance for committees that need to meet to study a government bill, when there are serious reasons to intensify the study of that bill?
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you, senator. I think where I said I would agree to a sessional order at the outset would be on the Monday sitting under certain conditions. It certainly would be government legislation and so on and so forth.
On the committee sitting, you are absolutely right, Senator Saint-Germain. Certainly, we have agreed on a case-by-case basis to allow the National Finance Committee to sit, and that has been there for many years that the Finance Committee could sit. Unfortunately, the budget bill and the economic statements always come to us at such a very late stage, which I think, quite frankly, is unacceptable.
As much as I would like to blame this government for that, I really cannot, because that is something that has been there since I have been in the chamber, and there are others here that were appointed almost at the same time as I was — either a little bit before or after, and Senator Cordy, of course, before I was — and so we have governments that bring us those budgets very late. That shouldn’t be.
Other bills, even bills at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, yes, we have agreed to that on occasion, but I find it unacceptable that we get the bills in such a way that we have to do that.
Would I agree, as we have in the past, on a case-by-case basis? Yes.
A sessional order simply means that from then on, that is what is going to happen. On that particular issue, I would not be comfortable at this point with a sessional order. On the Monday sittings, given the parameters that I suggested, I personally might be.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Senator Plett, for being here and adding to our dialogue. I’ve been taking notes as to what I can say the week after next.
You talked about the number of public bills on the Order Paper — 83, I think you said — and the average used to be 30 to 40. Did you come up with any solutions, or were you just throwing that out there?
Senator Plett: I think you and I have had this conversation in the past, Senator Cordy, and it’s a good question. It is a dilemma.
I have never been a real fan of all of the private members’ bills, and they have gotten worse. They may well have started under a previous government — they probably did.
You have heard me in the chamber speak about the Trudeau-appointed independent senators, but the fact of the matter is that the number of Senate appointments that have been made where senators are here and are completely independent has, for that reason, increased the private members’ bills. There is no question about it.
Those of us that came here, and we were under the umbrella of a party, typically, for private members’ bills, we, at least, would lobby our own caucuses and find out that there was support for what we were doing in our own caucuses, so at least there was some anchor, if you will, some support that we would have.
With what we have now, in fairness, if we have 105 caucuses, if you will — 105 senators, and they are all independent, and they are not all in any caucus — they can bring their bill forward with absolutely no support, and it has to be put on the Order Paper.
This will bog this down, and then scroll has to decide, in this case, which ones are important. That’s the way things are negotiated; we have to give this in order to get that.
We’re not getting our work done. Unless we find a solution where we sit until midnight every night, or until nine o’clock or ten o’clock every night, and we make sure that senators do not go home on Thursdays at five o’clock, that they stay here until ten o’clock at night, this problem won’t get better; it will just get worse, and it has been getting worse.
We see that all the time. We even debated this yesterday in the chamber, where we dealt with an issue yesterday as opposed to Thursday, because certain senators might not be able to be here. On Thursdays our numbers are down, because people are going home.
We have three of the leaders in this room. You know that members in your groups are saying, “Well, I’m sorry; I can’t be there after six o’clock on Thursday.”
Do I have a solution? My solution would be that we find a way of limiting the number of private members’ business that we are doing, that we very much limit that and maybe find a way of it getting a certain amount of support before it’s even entertained.
The Chair: If I may, just to go into this questioning, should we limit them per senator, for instance?
Senator Plett: I don’t know that I have the answer. My personal preference, Senator Bellemare, is that we limit the number first, because that’s where our biggest problem is. If it’s per session, then possibly, but we have to find a solution to that. We know the problem, and I think rather than focusing on, “Well, let’s allow committees to meet while the Senate is sitting,” that doesn’t reduce the numbers. That will only increase the numbers, in my opinion, because there is no reason not to throw more in there.
I think, first and foremost, we can’t do that. Then we need to work on this.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Busson: Thank you, Senator Plett, for taking your valuable time to come here today.
It’s a bit of a nuanced question that I have for you, but it involves the Tuesday night committees that meet in the evening. I sit on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee that meets at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, and I was wondering if you would offer your expert opinion around the possibility of having permission for committees on Tuesday night to sit if the Speaker sees the clock?
Senator Plett: You mean for a dinner break. Is that what you’re suggesting?
Senator Busson: Yes.
Senator Plett: Again, I find that problematic. I think we all need a dinner break, not just those who don’t have a committee meeting. We aren’t adjourned.
I have serious issues with that. My thinking, Senator Busson, is that we need to find a way of rising by 5:30 or six o’clock. That is what we need to focus on. We need to do our government business or six o’clock. If we rise at six o’clock, we have time for committees.
That has borne the test of time. We did that for a lot of years, and it worked fine. There were private members’ bills at that point, too, that we managed to get through. There were a lot less, but we did have some late sittings.
At this point, I don’t think that is the solution. I’m firmly of the opinion that everyone needs the dinner break.
Senator Busson: Clearly, we’re pressed for time trying to get a lot of important things done in a very short period.
When I first came to the Senate, there were sittings of the Senate that started at 1:30. Could you tell me your opinion on how that might be seen?
Senator Plett: We have discussed that at leaders’ meetings, for sure. I have always been supportive of a 1:30 start. I’m not sure, but I think this started around the time of COVID. We used to be able to do that, but we have committee meetings now that are very close to 1:30, if not until 1:30 — 1:15 for sure — and it’s not allowing people time to get lunch, for example, if they have a committee meeting until 1:15. I would be very supportive a 1:30 start, for sure, if we could find a way of terminating our morning committee meetings, perhaps starting them earlier.
Clearly, this is like a Jenga puzzle, if you will. As soon as you make one move, you have to make several others.
If we could find a way of having our committee meetings adjourn earlier so that we could do a 1:30 start, I would certainly be supportive of that, yes.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I certainly concur with the fact that when the chamber is sitting, senators should be in the chamber. That’s fundamental.
One of the major problems is the committees that sit on Mondays. I believe that if the Senate is in a sitting week, we shouldn’t discriminate or disqualify these committees from sitting on Mondays. We can argue that because of the quantity of committees, the only time slot to sit is on Mondays.
Could you indicate to me why you find that it is not possible that when the Senate is in the sitting week, these Monday meetings are not considered? I have a hard time with that, because, essentially, we are penalizing these committees when we don’t do that.
Senator Plett: Thank you for the question. I don’t like the term we’re “penalizing” the committees, because our calendar is set well in advance. Committees can certainly adjust their committee meetings based on the calendar that they have.
I did say in my remarks, Senator Ringuette, that, first of all, I am open to a sessional order that would allow these committees to sit in their time slots if they are dealing with government business and continue with the special permission that they now need for non-government business. I stand by that.
I am not in favour of changing a rule of this kind that takes away any of the powers of, quite frankly, the government or the opposition in the sunset of a Parliament. If we do it with a sessional order, which means that when the next election is held the order is done, and we revisit that in the new Parliament and possibly make that permanent. That is why I do agree with you that we allow, in a sessional order, for these committees to sit when they are dealing with government business.
As I said, we have to remember that these calendars are set in advance. People adjust their calendars in advance. People book holidays in a two-week break in March, for example, or a five-week break in winter. Their holiday may be booked, so it’s inconvenient and very awkward for them to come back. The calendar is there, so they aren’t expecting to be sitting. That calendar is set up in such a way that those are the days that we’re sitting, not the weeks we are sitting. It’s set up that way.
Certainly for government business I am quite prepared to take a look at that, but again, as I have said in my previous comments, I’m not that willing, personally, to change for private members’ issues.
The Chair: May I intervene and ask a question on this issue?
What would you do, then, for the committees that only sit on Mondays? For example, OLLO, Human Rights, they do their regular business. The rule says that they need permission to sit on Mondays for their regular business when we have a break longer than a week.
Would you consider adjusting that rule? They wouldn’t meet at all, then, if they always need permission. If permission is not given, then they will be treated differently than all other committees. These committees only sit on Mondays.
Senator Plett: Fair enough, Senator Bellemare, but it is not as if we are penalizing someone because we’re not treating them equally. The penalty isn’t to the people if they adjust their schedule accordingly.
Again, I said that if it’s government business, yes. A committee looks at the calendar and says, “Instead of us being able to meet 27 times, we are able to meet 24 times or 22 times in one year,” and they adjust their entire work schedule accordingly.
It’s not penalizing someone. You’re not taking anything away. You may not be giving someone something, but you haven’t taken something away. You determine which committees you would like to do this.
You’re using Official Languages. Another one is Defence. In our case, for both Official Languages and Defence, we have given permission now for the next, however, many weeks that, yes, they can sit on Mondays.
Senator Ataullahjan: Five weeks for one committee and two weeks for the other.
Senator Plett: Five weeks for one committee and two weeks for another committee. Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan.
These things can be negotiated without taking away the powers of either the opposition or the government.
Again, if it’s government business — I’m repeating this — I’m okay for this session, personally. I need to get agreement from my caucus, but for this session, I personally would be willing, on a sessional order, to allow these committees without permission to sit Mondays if they are dealing with government legislation.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Plett, you are an experienced parliamentarian. Usually when we have legislation, then we can expect regulations to follow. Do you agree with that principle that the regulation should follow the legislation and that it is actually a must?
Senator Plett: As you say, it’s a must, so whether I agree with it or not is somewhat irrelevant. Should it happen? Yes, I think it should happen.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question was about the Monday meetings, but I think you completely addressed that. The only thing left is the following. Is it only the opposition leader who can make this type of decision, or do these analyses made on a case-by-case basis require an agreement between the different leaders?
[English]
Senator Plett: No, at this point, Senator Mégie, it’s the prerogative of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government, so it’s not just the Leader of the Opposition.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Senator Plett. I think many of us certainly would share your concerns about people being in the chamber, particularly Thursdays, big concern.
I’m just trying to understand — you’ve been here much longer than me — why a particular rule might be in place. You may not have the answer but I’m trying to understand it because rules are usually created to serve a purpose. I’m interested in the Monday rule. What is the purpose of having that rule? I understand where you shared with us about opposition and government, but I’m trying to understand what the purpose of that rule might actually be. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Senator Plett: The rule initially, of course, Senator Kutcher, was created when we primarily had two caucuses. The two leaders needed to determine that. Clearly, they were ex officio members as well, and they needed to make sure that they had their people at the committees.
It was a break until that point. The Senate only started sitting on Tuesdays, so people were coming in specially for a committee meeting. It was established that the two caucuses would decide. Clearly, we now have a different Senate — I understand that — which is why, again, I’m willing to consider that we have a different Senate now with the independents. I guess for all intents and purposes, we have five caucuses or groups or whatever and that needs to be considered, which is why I’m saying again that I think we, in part, solve the problem by allowing a sessional order. This may turn into something permanent, Senator Kutcher. I guess I’m saying that at the end of a Parliament, for us to change a rule permanently — whether or not I agree with the rule doesn’t even really matter in this case. To change a rule at the end of a Parliament, to make a permanent change, I just simply do not support that. As I said at the outset, it takes away something from the opposition, and I don’t support that because it would really mean, if we took that away, in essence the government alone would be making decisions especially on government legislation. They would be making decisions as to whether or not something would happen. I don’t support that.
Let’s at least work on it on a temporary basis. We would be willing, I think, to entertain that. It really solves a large part of the problem. We are getting closer and closer to a summer break here. Which means we’re getting a lot closer to an election. That’s not a partisan political comment; that’s simply a fact of life. So there will be either a continuation of this government or a change in government. Let’s make that decision when that happens.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Plett, in your opinion, do committees need to meet twice a week? Some of the committees meet once a week, and I’m talking specifically about RIDR and we seem to be doing all our work and we have done a lot of comprehensive studies.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan. I’m not sure. I really question why certain committees do only meet once and other committees meet twice. I would consider the Defence Committee — personally, this is a personal preference — I would consider that one of the most important committees we have here, my feeling. Maybe it’s because I’m partisan towards that committee. I sat on it for many years. I sat on the Transport Committee for many years, and we met twice a week. I always thought it was important that we did meet twice a week.
Why a committee, like the Defence Committee, would meet only once a week, I’m not familiar with the Official Languages only because I’ve never been a member of the Official Languages Committee.
I think this is at least to some extent the purview of the people on that committee how often. You are the chair of a committee. Your opinion on that should be valued. Human Rights, should they meet twice a week? I would say that would solve one of our problems, if every committee met only once a week, for sure. I’m not sure what the genesis is of some of these committees meeting only once a week and some meeting two. I can’t answer that.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Plett, at the Human Rights Committee, because I’m chair of this committee, so I’m specifically talking about that, we have the ability to meet for four hours but steering sits and decides, so sometimes we do take the four hours, sometimes it’s three hours, sometimes it’s two hours. For our committee, steering decides through consensus how many hours are needed. Maybe that’s something that all the other committees need to look at if it’s such a problem, because I also feel that for us to be in the chamber is our first order of business.
Senator Plett: First of all, I would support that notion, Senator Ataullahjan. The problem I see with that is if on a regular or irregular basis, the steering committee decides how many hours you meet that unfortunately doesn’t solve the problem of other committees being able to pick up what you don’t use. Because it would be kind of impossible for a committee, Transport, OLLO or somebody to say, well, Human Rights is only meeting for two hours this week, let’s grab that time slot. I’m not sure how well that would work. I’m not sure that is what you are suggesting.
Senator Ataullahjan: No.
Senator Plett: I am certainly suggesting if we adjust the time slots of the committees, that might give us more committee time.
Senator Ataullahjan: What I’m suggesting is we are allotted four hours. The committee decides, looking at the study we are doing and the witnesses we have and also taking into consideration sometimes certain senators have a problem trying to get here for a 4 o’clock meeting, which would mean them coming a day earlier to accommodate them, we still can meet from 5 to 8. Is that flexibility that committees could exercise?
Senator Plett: You’re right. Speaking of not getting here, when I was on the Defence Committee that was one of the problems that I struggled with, because they met on Mondays forever. Now, as a leader, I try to get here early on Mondays. Before I was in leadership, my flights many times were late and then as we changed chairs of committees, the time slot also changed. When I was on Defence Committee at the start, I think we met at 8 o’clock in the evening, then it became 6, then it became 4, and that makes it more difficult for people to travel.
I also really have a problem with the fact that certain senators cannot be on a committee because that committee meets at the wrong time. I’m of the mindset that we should all be here at any given time, and that should not necessarily be from 8:00 in the morning on Monday, but I do struggle a little bit with the Defence Committee meeting starting at 4 o’clock, because that pretty much eliminates many senators from coming here on a Monday and sitting on that committee. You are right, they have to come in then. Certainly, senators travelling from the West have to come in on Sunday in order to sit on that committee. I also have a problem with that, because we have senators that would be good on that committee who, for those reasons, are not on there.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your comments, Senator Plett. I share your concern that we need to be more efficient and find time to work on the right business at the right time. What do you think about the two potential elements that could be in a sessional order? The first one would be that we get a one-hour dinner break. We have a cafeteria onsite, and that would give us an additional hour to work every sitting day. That’s the first one.
The second one would be that we work to find a way to screen or filter from the beginning the non-government bills — I don’t mean private members’ bills, I mean Senate public bills — so that we are sure that the bills tabled and studied will have a chance to be referred, eventually, to the other place rather than, as many of them that have had this fate, die on the Order Paper. On this, I want to insist on the fact — and you didn’t say to the contrary — these bills are coming from all groups. Proportionally, your caucus — and this is not a criticism — has more of the bills than other caucuses. Why don’t we work on finding a way to make sure that these bills, when tabled, will have a chance to be scrutinized, and if they are adopted, to go to the other place in a timely manner?
Senator Plett: I think there were three questions in there. On your last point, you are right. A lot of them came from our caucus. The majority of them are around a similar issue. To a large extent, even though they were brought in by a specific member, they were, as I said at the outset, probably run through our caucus, maybe even nationally, to try to determine the support for it.
That being said, that doesn’t change my view on how many private members’ bills there should be. That has been there for a long time. That was there when there were two parties in the Senate. As I said at the outset, that was my personal opinion, not necessarily shared by everyone in my caucus.
To the question second question, yes, I think we should find a system that allows bills that are presented some sort of assurance that they will be voted on at some point. I do not disagree with that. The system we have now, with people coming in here, with all respect, and they have their — I want to be careful how I phrase this, because somebody that has a passion for something might take exception to me saying “pet peeve,” but this is their issue. It’s not necessarily shared by many; this is their issue. They come in and present that, and then we do as we do at scroll. I’m not on scroll, but scroll negotiates priorities. We see people coming to me — and I’m sure to you, Senator Saint-Germain — from other groups. I’ll have a senator come to me and say, “Senator Plett, I hear you are slowing down this bill, what can I do to make this bill move?” My answer is always the same: “What caucus or group are you in?” If it’s the Independent Senate Group, or ISG, go to Senator Clement or Senator Saint-Germain, because they have to prioritize your bill. It’s negotiated at scroll. Every senator is trying to somehow get theirs through the mix.
We have to find a better system, Senator Saint-Germain. I cannot tell you that I have the answer to it. The first answer is less. That’s the first answer. It would have to be a lot less before the problem goes away, and we probably aren’t going to get there.
There was a third question there, Senator Saint-Germain, on a one-hour dinner break. I would be open to entertain that and to look at that, yes. That has not been mentioned very often. At the outset, thinking about it very quickly, I would like to suggest that if we have that — and I’m not agreeing to it yet — that the dinner break should be from 7 o’clock to 8 o’clock as opposed to 6 o’clock to 7 o’clock, because that may end our session before the dinner break. If we do have that one-hour dinner break, it would be a later one, not the early one.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Plett, I know that this was not part of the intention of this committee, but this committee is also looking at the mandates of committees and also the quantities. I am certainly sympathetic to the fact that members of your caucus need to be on every committee and do the work that they need to do. I would like to have your opinion in regard to the quantity of committees that we have right now.
Senator Plett: That has been something, Senator Ringuette that — and you have been here longer than I have — we have, over the years, separated committees and then we have put them together again, and we have tried to amalgamate some committees. There is always a lot of pushback.
Yes, I would support fewer committees. I’m not sure how we would find a way to do that. There were some suggestions made that Agriculture and Fisheries could be together. I find that difficult, because I think they are two very different committees. The argument was that one week we would deal with fisheries and the next we would deal with agriculture. Then why wouldn’t we just have a Fisheries Committee and Agriculture Committee and they could meet every second week? That would do the same thing.
Yes, as our numbers have gotten smaller, it’s become more difficult. Again, I see a light at the end of the tunnel, but you are absolutely right. It’s a problem for the smaller caucuses to put people on every committee. I would be open to finding a solution for that, yes.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. I would like to go on longer on this. Particularly, I wanted to ask about the number of senators on committees and which ones are named to committees. With Senator Gold not here today, perhaps that is something that we can discuss that at a future meeting.
One thing I wanted to raise, first of all, is dealing with the private members’ bills and Senator Saint-Germain’s proposal that there be some sort of filter or something like that for private members’ bills. First of all, our national Conservative caucus has, as you were alluding to, quite an elaborate system of ensuring that bills are correct and have appropriate support, and that starts with advisory committees with all MPs and senators in the Conservative caucus, as well as going to the full caucus for discussion with our colleagues over in the House of Commons. We do have that sort of system.
One thing I wanted to get your comment on, Senator Plett, before we wrap up as a potential solution to this issue of the opposition’s inability to say no to Monday or break-time committee hearings. Some propose to have all group leaders needing to agree to that, not just government and opposition. Some have said that agreement needs to be unanimous, and some have said that it needs to be just a majority of Senate leaders who need to agree. Right now there are five leaders, and with a Senate group only needing nine members, we could have even more than that. Can you just comment about how unwieldy that sort of a system could be if you have to, all of a sudden, obtain the agreement of that many different people?
Senator Plett: First of all, thank you, Senator Batters. I would not agree with the majority three out of four, whatever. One of the reasons — and probably the biggest one — in my opinion, it would dilute the opposition’s role. Right now, the Conservative Party — the opposition in the Senate — is the only caucus that is basically opposed to government legislation, most government legislation. Last night, we found a piece of government legislation that actually we unanimously supported, but that is rare.
Such a rule would mean, in my opinion — because we are the only opposition — that the government alone decides whether or not to do this because, basically, if you are not in opposition, then that means a lot of the time, if not most of the time — and we can check the voting records — vote with the government.
Again, with all respect, I have shared this with other leaders, Senator Cordy and Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Tannas, when we have discussed this. In my opinion, even though they have separated their caucuses and groups for whatever reasons they have, I look at it and say that we have two caucuses. We have an opposition caucus and we have those that are not in an opposition caucus. To me, that would mean that we would give three votes to one caucus and one vote to another caucus. That’s the way I would look at that.
I think Senator Batters you would probably agree with that. That, to me, is a real sticking point in doing this. Understanding the issues that we have is why I say, “Why don’t we do a sessional order,” because we have already agreed. I have already agreed, Senator Ataullahjan said one committee two weeks and the other one five, and I think she is correct. That’s only because that’s the request I got.
Senator Dean came to me and said, “This is our agenda, this is what we would like to do: Our committee would like to meet on these Mondays. Would you agree or do I have to ask every time?” I said, “No, let’s make a deal. We will do this.” I did the same thing with Senator Cormier, under the condition that if something happens, I reserve the right — and by the Rules I do reserve the right — to withdraw that. But let’s try to make life easy and let’s cooperate. It is not a rule I want to use unfairly just because I want to wield a stick.
In my opinion, there are two caucuses, and so, no, I would not support that.
[Translation]
The Chair: The time we have for the first panel of witnesses is up.
Thank you, Senator Plett. That was very instructive and I thank you on behalf of everyone. I hope that you are open to meeting us again on other topics.
[English]
Senator Plett: Good luck with Senator Quinn. I encourage you strongly to support what he is going to come out here and ask you for.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will continue with the second part of our meeting.
We welcome Senator Quinn on a very important issue that has to do with the delays in getting government answers to senators’ written and oral questions.
This invitation is tied to a letter you received from Senator Jim Quinn on May 17, 2023, about rule 4-10.
I give the floor to Senator Quinn.
[English]
You can take around six, seven, eight minutes and then we’ll go to questioning. Thank you.
Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you, chair. I am not a very wordy person, and I know you are suppressing that laughter. First off, thank you for allowing me to appear before the committee. It’s an honour to be here. It’s a little intimidating. Last time I sat in this kind of a chair with so many people around was when I was applying for a job. Hopefully, this will go better than that.
Quite frankly, it is coming on three years since I was appointed as a senator. The first part of that was when we were doing virtual sittings and hearings and the rest of the time in the chamber. The thing that struck me, as a former senior public servant, was the question of — when it came to questions and responses to questions — and I can only relate to my experience in the public sector, which I left in 2010 to go down and take the role of CEO at the Port of Saint John, that when questions came in to the areas I worked in, whether it was in the Privy Council Office, or in the department as a junior or senior official, and when questions came in either from members of Parliament from the House of Commons or from the Senate, they were treated seriously. It became a priority to get the information back up the line, through to the deputy and back over to the Privy Council Office.
The thing that makes me take particular attention on this particular question I have raised in the letter is that I know in the House of Commons, that rigour remains, but not so much in the Senate. That kind of tweaked me a little bit, because we are all members of Parliament and we all deserve that same respect in responding to questions raised by members of Parliament, and I decided that I would raise it. I spoke with Senator Bellemare, and the suggestion was to put the letter forward. I put the letter forward as succinctly as I could.
In essence, that is the background as to why I think it’s important that we have that same recognition of the important work we do, because oftentimes the questions being asked are directly tied to work that senators are involved with.
I must admit I have said to Senator Gold three or four times that I feel for him, because the government is big, and the questions from us are sometimes complex, and he can’t have possibly information at his disposal at all times. It would be unrealistic to expect that, and it’s respectful of us to allow him to have that opportunity to go back, and I recognize that when he goes back, he doesn’t have total control of forcing the information to come forward.
It is worth a discussion, and there are things that we can do to cause a little more rigour in the system to help us do our job and, quite frankly, help Senator Gold do his job as the Government Representative in the Senate.
[Translation]
The Chair: That is a very good point. We can now to proceed to questions.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: Looking at rule 4-10, contrary to the other place, we don’t have a deadline for written questions. There is nothing in the other place in regard to oral questions. With regard to written questions, what would be your suggestion for a deadline to answer these questions?
Senator Quinn: I suggest that both, if I may, for written and oral questions, that when we table those or discuss those, present them in session, I think from that day forward, there should be a 45-day response period time required. There should be — I’ll put it this way — an incentive, if you will, for people to respond, and if there is no answer coming within that 45-day period, there is a request for an extension and that the extension be defined. After that — and even perhaps after the 45 days, if the deputy head — we refer the question to the appropriate committee, and the appropriate committee deals with it, brings the officials in, determines the answer. At the end of the day, it’s the deputy head who is responsible for the operations in the department, and they may need to appear before that committee to briefly explain why the answer is not forthcoming or explain what the answer is.
There needs to be that kind of rigour; otherwise, we’ll be in the situation where — I think this week we saw a question that was asked in 2021, and it’s not unusual to see questions not being answered for a year or longer. That’s the kind of thing that the Rules Committee may want to consider in debate in terms of setting it up in a way that gives us the respect as parliamentarians trying to do our job and yet provides recognition that sometimes it does take time to get answers. But there has to be a time frame; otherwise, it will dwell, and the issue of the day may disappear into the — and the information not available to senators who are then not in the best position to do the job that we have been asked to do.
The Chair: Just in line with Senator Ringuette, do you have statistics about how long it takes in the other house to get the written question usually, on average? Is it lower than 45 days?
Senator Quinn: I don’t have that statistic, but I believe the 45 days is —
The Chair: It’s the rule? Okay.
Senator Quinn: — the required turnaround.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much, and thanks for bringing this forward, Senator Quinn, because, yes, we have been seeing this more and more. It is actually ridiculous how many times we hear recently the government deputy leader providing us answers which, frankly, the fullness of those answers is considerably questionable, often. But we hear these answers which — yes, just the other week, we were hearing May 2021, September 2021, and when you see some of the answers provided, you wonder why it possibly took that long. I appreciate you bringing this to a head, and, in fact, Senator Gold has occasionally been asking our committee to study this. This is a welcome proposal, but it actually shouldn’t be required as this is the purview of the Privy Council Office, or PCO, to be providing Senator Gold, and the Senate through him, these answers.
Wouldn’t it generally be that it’s the Government of Canada that’s deciding what kind of priority to put on this, and clearly this is at the bottom of the barrel right now in their priority level?
Senator Quinn: I think that’s an interesting way to frame it, and maybe I’ll take the liberty of framing it slightly differently. I have heard so many comments along the way about how the Senate is the ruler of its destiny. We decide how we’re going to conduct our business and whatnot. We could debate whether PCO is doing its job or not doing its job or what have you, but we need to come up with a regime, a framework, that outlines how it’s going to be and that ensures that we have that mechanism of having a deputy head called before our committee if that mechanism is not followed.
It’s easy to look back and say, “This isn’t working, and who is at fault” versus ”Let’s put something in place to make it work.” At the end of the day, I’ll repeat, I believe that we’re all members of Parliament. We are not the elected members of Parliament, but we have an important legislative role to play. A vital role, I would suggest. Therefore, we need to have the accordance of all of the privileges of other parliamentarians to enable us to do our job in a more precise way.
Senator Batters: Absolutely.
Yes, that is a good idea to bring the head of PCO here to hear what their process is and what priority they are putting on it and those types of things. That could be very interesting.
I also remember that when Senator Carignan was the government leader, I recall him generally providing — Senator Cordy may beg to differ — answers in Question Period and took less time to refer something to “I will get back to you on that,” “I will have an answer provided to you on that,” and, therefore, maybe there were fewer questions that were getting referred to PCO for these types of written answers. I recall Senator Carignan saying that he actually tried to provide an answer rather than just putting it off because he knew that sometimes that could take a very lengthy period of time.
I also wanted to get your comment on, if you could, the substance of some of these written answers that we’re receiving. I’ll give you an example that I had last year. When, in Saskatchewan, my home province, we had the horrific murders at the James Smith Cree Nation, I asked a question in the Senate Question Period to Senator Gold about that and what the government was going to do to make sure that something like this never happened again, and he gave me a small answer on it, but then he said, “I will make inquiries,” as he so often says.
What happened on that is the RCMP — because of additional media that I did and additional questions that had been raised by many in the public about what the RCMP was doing and what the government was doing — finally had a press conference about 10 days later, where they provided a number of answers. But I still didn’t receive this delayed answer. When I received the delayed answer — I believe it was in May, something like six months later — it consisted of, basically, just a few of the answers that the RCMP had given in their press conference in October, and the letter was signed by the parliamentary secretary, not even a minister. What value is a written answer that provides that kind of information? Would you also propose that there be some sort of mechanism if the delayed answer is not appropriate?
When I brought this to Senator Gold’s attention, he said, “Oh, write me a letter and I’ll see what more information I can get you.” I did that right away, within that week. I still haven’t gotten an answer and it’s how many months after May 2023?
Senator Quinn: Thank you, Senator Batters. A clarification — I’ll pick up on your suggestion, which I think is a good one — is to have the clerk come and talk about the process they have at PCO. Who is responsible in PCO? Is it the machinery of government, for example? Have those folks come and talk about that process so there is a better understanding. My suggestion was, after we understand that process, you have to get it closer to the front end. I am talking to the deputy head of the department.
If we have a question on fisheries, for example, that’s not been responded to, then we have a framework that says, within these prescribed periods, if it’s not, then we will have the committee ask that deputy head to come in and explain why it hasn’t been answered, ask for an extension or what have you. That’s important to do. When it becomes of import to the clerk, it becomes of import to the deputies.
The length of time for those responses, again, I think we need to take some ownership of prescribing here is our expected framework. I’m suggesting 45 days, only because that’s what happens in some regards at the House of Commons. We do need to take some control over stating what we expect. We’re the parliamentarians. That needs to be us telling the system, which is there to support parliamentarians. We need to do that.
The other thing that you raise — your example, the answers that come or don’t, or are kind of weak — we have the right to go back and seek better clarification. The committee can play a role in that as well.
What’s important is there are so many questions that have been asked. They come back, they are tabled or they don’t come back. When we do get something back, I would suggest that the committee consider how we can have a mechanism that shares that with all senators. We’re all in the chamber when those questions are asked. We’re all there.
I know there are cases where you have asked some good questions. I would like to know what the answers are, or any of my colleagues. Those questions are relevant to the debates that we’re having. That’s what I would propose.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is about the process that is followed for our questions; it starts with point (a), point (b), point (c), until there is a response. I heard what Senator Batters is proposing — I find it very interesting — which is to invite someone from the Privy Council Office to come explain to us how the process works.
However, once we know that, what power does our committee have to implement a deadline of 45 days or 60 days? They are the ones who will decide whether it is a priority for the government, but they will not tell us. What can we do? What power does the committee have? What can we do to get a better result and ensure better collaboration?
The Chair: I could add to that if necessary.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that good question.
I’m trying not to go too far back into my life. I worked in the machinery of government for a while. It is sort of like the movie, Men in Black. You are not supposed to talk about what you did in the machinery of government.
What power does the House of Commons have to put their rules in place? We are parliamentarians, as they are. They establish their rules. We should establish our rules.
The clerk of the Privy Council is probably there to serve legislators, among all the other functions that the person has as head of the public service, secretary to the cabinet, et cetera. We should state what we believe is the appropriate, fair framework and put that in place.
It’s the bureaucracy’s job to serve not only the people of Canada but legislators. They have a double role: To serve Parliament and the people of Canada. I’m really focusing on that serving Parliament role. We do have the right to put in frameworks that we believe will help us do a better job on behalf of the people of Canada who we are serving. That’s how I would do it if I had the “powerful sword.”
It is worthy of having that discussion and having the appropriate PCO official. I would suggest you start with the clerk, probably the deputy clerk would be the person. In any case, have them come with their officials and explain how does that work from their perspective?
What worries me is I watch it unfold. I’m suspect that members of Parliament, who are elected, have more attention paid to them because they have rules that call for responses within a period of time.
I can guarantee that if we have a rule that says we’re going to ask that deputy head to come before the committee to explain where the answer is, why not, or request an extension, they don’t want to do that. Not that they don’t want to do it; they’ll do it, but they want to avoid having that kind of presentation.
Don’t forget, at the end of the year, there is a discussion of how the department is doing with respect to its responding to requirements placed on it? It is something called the Management Accountability Framework and all deputies are assessed against it, unless something has changed. I have been out of that system for over ten years now. I assume that it’s still there. That’s tied into performance and things of that nature. It’s worth a try.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think that is a good strategy. We should invite the clerk of the Privy Council Office to come talk to us and see if we have this in our rules. I would remind you that rule 4-10 is very general and has more to do with how we operate and the process to follow. However, it does not involve the government whatsoever. We certainly do not have any power over the government, but we have a moral power with a rule that demands it of the government.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Senator Quinn, for opening up a can of worms.
Senator Quinn: Are you ready to go fishing somewhere?
Senator Kutcher: Absolutely. In thinking about what you have brought to us, the timeliness of the answer is only one part of the issue. I thank Senator Batters for raising some of the other components.
As I think about it in my very naive, non-parliamentary way, there are time limits of an answer. There is the quality of the answer. Then there is the transparency of the answer. Those three components would, as I think about it, be part of what the answer would be.
The timeliness issue, we need to deal with the issue that you said in terms of how timely it is.
Slightly a bit thornier is the quality. I’m sure all of us have had answers to questions which we would consider to be suboptimal. There is no way of pushing that back further. You get one answer and that’s it. The question in my mind, is there a way of a supplementary or a furthering of that, not for ever and ever, but is there some other kind of process we should think about?
The third thing, you said it already but I want to put it in our cognitive awareness, is the issue of transparency. If I get an answer to a question, I don’t share it with everybody else. It comes to me. I look at it. I read it. I have my own feelings about it. All of us are interested in what the answers to these questions are.
Can you put your thinking cap on and address timeliness, quality and transparency as well, since we are on the issue of questions?
Senator Quinn: I think I have addressed the timeliness part of it.
Senator Kutcher: Yes.
Senator Quinn: The quality side of it, Senator Batters hit that theme nicely in that we can go back.
I’ll say that, again, I have been out of that system since 2010, but one of the things in the areas I worked in, in different departments, was there was pride in taking care coming out of the department with quality answers. I would like to think that the pride of the public service is there. We have an excellent public service. I would hope the determination to be as good as you can be with your answer remains there. We should have a recourse mechanism.
In terms of transparency, I fully respect that in the public service there are times when we’re providing advice to ministers or we’re in that ministerial process, such as a Treasury Board of Canada submission process, and there are times when it’s not appropriate because the question may be too far in advance of the policy discussion and direction that the government wants to take because they are the government. That may be part of an issue with respect to transparency.
Certainly, when a policy becomes a bill and the bill becomes law, then there should be a complete transparency on questions. For example, if there is a piece of legislation that involves enforcement and we have questions about how that enforcement is conducted, that should not only be a good-quality answer, but it should be absolutely transparent because it’s the law of the land.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for bringing this. I think it’s something we have all thought about in our heads and all questioned why our answers are taking so long. I think this is a great start. Maybe we can look at it.
Senator Batters, it was no different back in the day when I was asking more questions than I am now. I have to tell you also that the answers that I got back in the day with — I was going to say Senator Harper — Prime Minister Harper and now with Prime Minister Trudeau are equally as vague, so it’s not a change. It’s very frustrating when you have waited for months and you get an answer that is really not an answer.
What I’m also wondering, I look at my answer when I get it. You get a printed copy on your desk, and that’s great. But then I remember all of the other questions that are asked. Are these part of the public record, or do you know that? If not, maybe the clerk does. Are these written into the blues at the end of the day so that we could look up all of the written responses that we have gotten and that the Leader of the Government has gotten? Do you know?
Senator Quinn: The clerk may be better informed.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, in relation to responses to delayed answers to oral questions, those are printed in the Debates on the day on which they are tabled. With answers to written questions, they are tabled, noted in the Journals with a document number just like any other tabled document, but they are not printed in extent. They are made available on request to senators or even members of the public, again, just like any other printed document.
Senator Quinn: I would suggest that the committee think of a process that would allow questions, either written or otherwise, to be shared with senators. Why not? It would be easier.
[Translation]
The Chair: If there are no other questions, I would like to say a few words because there may be a parallel between the questions senators ask and the responses we expect from the government on committee reports.
You may think that the government’s responses take time. There may be a link between these two aspects of questioning in relation to the government, or the responses to studies and the responses to reports. We will certainly take a closer look at this.
Are there any questions? Senator Wells, do have something to add?
[English]
Senator Wells: You knew by looking at me that I had a question? We have been here too long, perhaps.
Thank you, Senator Quinn. This a really important topic. I did receive from the Leader of the Government in the Senate a delayed answer last year, read it, wasn’t satisfied with it but really didn’t act on it. I didn’t have my colleagues read it. I didn’t move beyond that.
In your suggestion of mirroring what the House of Commons does with a 45-day deadline, there are ways to get around that as well if you really don’t want the information public. If you ask a question in mid-May and there are 45 days to respond, of course, 45 days will take you into perhaps early July, and then we won’t be back until maybe early October, so there are ways to delay even the delayed answers.
If the committee does give any consideration to proposing a rule, I would want to take that into account. It could be 45 days or to the end of the sitting in June or, however, we might word it. I just wanted to get your thoughts on a provision like that.
Senator Quinn: I think that the committee should have that deliberation. If I were part of that deliberation, I would have to reflect on are we talking sitting days? Are we talking calendar days? Because you’re right, there are gaps. Sometimes when you get a response during a gap, it does fall between the cracks and is not noticed. There are several factors that this committee may want to think about or reflect upon when they discuss that particular aspect.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Quinn.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. If there are no other questions or comments, I thank you for drawing the committee’s attention to this important issue.
We are clearly dealing with a topic that has to do with the structure and mandate of the committee, but we could certainly find an appropriate time to invite the clerk of the Privy Council. We will notify you so that you can join us and ask questions of this official.
Thank you very much, colleagues. On that, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)