THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 7, 2025
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister into the Rules of the Senate, including recommendations for amendments.
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Peter Harder. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan and the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator McNair: Senator John McNair from New Brunswick.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Surette: Allister W. Surette from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Downe: Senator Percy Downe, Charlottetown.
The Chair: Thank you all. Today, we begin our study on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister into our Rules.
We are pleased to welcome three of our colleagues today:
[Translation]
We’re joined by the Honourable Raymonde Saint-Germain, Facilitator of the Independent Senators Group. I must wish you a happy birthday today.
[English]
We also welcome the Honourable Scott Tannas, Leader of the Canadian Senators Group; and the Honourable Judy A. White, Deputy Leader of the Progressive Senate Group.
We welcome you all and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before our committee. I invite you to make your opening statements, after which we will have questions from the floor.
Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain, Facilitator, Independent Senators Group: Dear colleagues and members of the committee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to share my perspective as the Facilitator of the Independent Senators Group as part of this committee’s study on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister.
I wish to congratulate the steering committee members for offering every group and caucus the opportunity to share their views on this topic and for having extended this opportunity to every senator through the ongoing survey.
I am speaking today in my own capacity as a senator but with the experience of having been involved in these internal discussions and negotiations since September 2017 as the Independent Senators Group deputy facilitator and now facilitator.
Let me begin by stating my support for the practice of having ministers appear before the Senate during Question Period. It is an important part of our role to hold the government to account. This practice also provides a more direct contact with government members rather than only depending on the Government Representative in the Senate.
In the context of physical and metaphorical distance between the House and the Senate — due to rehabilitation work to Centre Block and the reform for a more independent Senate — this is a welcome opportunity to have an exchange and raise concerns and critical issues directly with the government.
Currently, 78% of senators are either independent or non-affiliated. Since independent senators do not have access to government ministers within caucus, ministerial Question Period is a good opportunity to have an exchange, raise concerns and hold them to account. This model helps support a modern and efficient Senate, allowing all senators to ask questions of the government regardless of their political or recognized status in the chamber.
Now please allow me to provide a bit of relevant historical context. Formalizing the process of ministerial Question Period has been part of the reflection around a modern Senate for a long time. It was amongst the recommendations of the first report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization — Recommendations 18 to 20 — and again in its ninth report focused on Question Period.
Its use as a tool for the Senate in holding the government to account was also highlighted in former Speaker Furey’s ruling in 2016 on a question of privilege about the lack of a government leader in the Senate, and I do believe, Senator Harder, that you would particularly remember this ruling.
This is why I consider it relevant to formalize in the Rules of the Senate the process of inviting ministers for Question Period. This would be consistent with the practice of the past few years and the recommendations of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization.
In its reports, the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization recommended:
. . . question period should be limited to two days per week with one day being devoted to questions for a Government minister . . . .
In practice, the sessional order we adopted at the beginning of this Parliament also calls for precise terms regarding invitations of any minister of the Crown.
I will not quote it but will refer to it later.
From my standpoint, the time has come to go forward with the recommendation of the committee while building on the language and practice from the sessional order.
The Rules of the Senate govern the functioning of this institution but do not coerce the government or the House of Commons. We should be careful in adding rules which may be difficult to apply or enforce. To add rules that are applicable and enforceable, we should model the language on the current sessional order, as well as other rules pertaining to ministers such as rule 12-31(4) or rule 2-12(1).
Since the two practices are linked, I would suggest that if happening in the same week, the presence of a minister at Committee of the Whole would replace the need for ministerial Question Period on that week. In other words, if we pursue formalization of ministerial Question Period, a provision should be added to rule 12-31(4), making the new rule void in cases where a minister is appearing at Committee of the Whole.
Now I will speak to enshrining the proportionality principle into the Rules.
[Translation]
Regarding the principle of proportionality, which is a principle of fairness, I would like to make a recommendation, with all due respect, to the opposition in the Senate. The opposition plays an important role and holds a special status. I believe that greater proportionality is needed. I want to emphasize that this proportionality must apply not only to all caucuses and groups, but also to non-affiliated senators. In the modern Senate, all caucuses, groups and senators must hold the government to account. This principle of proportionality applies to both the ministerial Question Period and the Question Period with the Government Representative in the Senate.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Hon. Scott Tannas, Leader, Canadian Senators Group: Thanks to the committee for their work on this important subject to us in the Senate as we undertake our work. I would like to associate myself with some of Senator Saint-Germain’s opening comments as well.
I want to start by just talking about regular Question Period. I think we need to talk about that. Many of you will know I came here, and for many years, I was not a fan of Question Period. I used to say loudly that it was like a 30-minute trip to the dentist three times a week. Just regarding the tone, we get into eras where the opposition is frustrated. They have been in opposition for a long time. That was the year I came in, and the questions reflected the frustration and the tenure of people in opposition. That seems to be a regular occurrence in politics. I think that during those periods, Question Period is sometimes difficult for those of us who are not participating but simply watching and listening.
When genuine questions are asked in good faith, it makes it all worthwhile, and genuine questions asked in good faith come from opposition members and from other members. To me, it also requires good answers to those good questions. I’m quite optimistic; it’s early days with a new answerer, but the answers are coming quickly and they are good answers. If this was a year ago and we were asking about ministerial Question Period supplanting regular Question Period and how often we ought to do that, I would have a different answer than I do today.
With respect to ministerial Question Period, in my mind it is a very positive innovation, and it did come through the Massicotte-Greene meetings and then through the modernization process. There have been moments where it has been obvious it is of great value — with questions of great value and exchanges that were very interesting and provided important insights — and there have been low points as well.
I think it is extremely useful. Again, like Senator Saint-Germain, I’m speaking for myself, with some experience here.
I think it is useful. I think the current convention of once every two weeks is enough. I certainly wouldn’t want to see it any more than once a week. I support the idea of making this permanent in some fashion for two weeks.
Just assuming that, it would mean that we would basically have an encounter with every cabinet minister — if that were the way — every two years. I don’t think that’s necessarily the way it will work, because one of the other conventions that I think is important is to allow the opposition and other groups to provide a list of whom we would like to see in a timely fashion and press the government leader to produce those ministers whom we have timely questions on. Some ministers coming more frequently than others, I think, is a good thing.
I think the general format and premise of ministerial Question Period is positive. Personally, I think that for proportionality, in this instance this is one of the moments where opposition members need extra time, particularly given their numbers, which is kind of an extreme situation to what it usually would be. I think in cases like this where proportionality disproportionately harms the group that is in charge of getting up every day and poking holes in the government’s sales pitch, we need to consider overproportionality for the opposition. But maybe there is some recognition that as numbers change, we can move back to something closer to proportionality.
It is clear that both with our own Question Period and with ministerial Question Period, the behaviour and tone enhance the quality of ministerial Question Period. I think focusing ministers on substantive matters specifically in their portfolios rather than tangentially related to other things would be better.
Adding it to the Rules — and I think Senator Saint-Germain touched on this — would be good to institutionalize ministerial Question Period, but we have to recognize we have no power to compel ministers to come. It may be one of those things that needs to stay as a tradition or something less formal than putting it in the Rules, because we don’t have the power of summons or enforcement if people don’t want to come. We could easily find another government that simply refuses to participate in this.
I want to mention where the minister sits because we have had two different ways. At one point, we experimented with the minister sitting beside or in the seat of the government leader and answering in a traditional way by standing up, with stand-up questions back and forth. We have largely, though, done it at the Black Rod’s end of the chamber with a desk and microphone. I think we should formalize that the Black Rod table way is the Senate style. I think it’s a unique style that suits us. It brings the temperature down. It also keeps us from looking like we are the off-Broadway version of the House of Commons — I cringe when we get all torqued up making noise when we are supposed to be the sober second thought folks.
Those are my comments, colleagues. Thank you.
Hon. Judy A. White, Deputy Leader, Progressive Senate Group: Thank you, chair and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here this morning. I’m going to address several key areas for your consideration, including the merits of formalizing these sessions in the Rules versus maintaining flexibility, the process for selecting ministers to appear, the question of time limits, proposed formats and scheduling.
At the outset, let me be very clear: We recognize the clear benefits that Question Period with cabinet ministers can bring. It provides senators with a direct opportunity to engage members of the executive on policy and legislation. Institutionalizing these sessions for our Senate Rules would certainly ensure regularity and public predictability. In turn, it would ensure greater transparency, which I think we all want to see.
However, we do urge some caution. One of the Senate’s core strengths is in its flexibility: its ability to adapt procedures in response to changing political landscapes, legislative priorities and unforeseen circumstances. Embedding regular ministerial Question Period into the Rules with provisions that are too prescriptive — again depending on the wording — may actually constrain us. Rigid procedural requirements risk hampering the Senate’s ability to innovate and respond dynamically, which I see as what we do. We encourage the committee to carefully balance the merits of consistency against the value of maintaining procedural flexibility in the chamber.
As it relates to time management, that is going to be critical in preserving the efficiency of Senate proceedings. In addition, the format for Question Period should actually reflect the Senate’s distinct culture — the culture of thoughtfulness and evidence-based discussion — and not mirror, as Senator Tannas highlighted, the adversarial style of the House of Commons.
We see the value in establishing reasonable time limits. The time limit now of 60 minutes seems to work well. We would be mindful that these limits should not be so rigid as to restrict substantive exchanges or the opportunity to follow up on questions.
Allocated speaking times per recognized group does work. We would, however, prefer that any specific time limits for questions and answers be made by sessional order like they are now for Question Period rather than embedding them into the Senate Rules.
When it comes to Senate scheduling, we have to adhere to the Senate’s calendar and traditions. We think this should be respected. One possible approach could be to structure Question Period in a way that reflects current realities through a sessional order or internal agreements within the groups. For example, we could hold Question Period with the Government Representative in the Senate on Tuesdays, no Question Period on Wednesday as we adjourn early and then reserve Thursdays for ministerial Question Period when a minister appears to answer questions related to their respective portfolio. We think this structure would provide for a consistent opportunity for accountability while also accommodating the logistical demands of coordinating ministerial appearances.
The process for choosing ministers should be a collaborative approach, and we think the current process where parliamentary groups and parties are invited to submit names to the Government Representative’s Office works well. We think that another option would be for the Government Representative’s Office to fan out based on topical relevance with Senate leadership, including representatives from all recognized groups and parties.
We also think that a rotational model could be considered to allow a range of portfolios to appear regularly but then still providing flexibility to adjust to emerging priorities.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is any process should remain adaptable enough to allow for invitations outside of a fixed rotation when urgent or unforeseen issues arise.
As discussions continue about modifying the Rules to reflect the current structure, we think it is important to keep in mind that making significant or permanent changes to the Rules in response to the current moment could unintentionally limit our ability to hold governments now and in the future to account. We are suggesting a cautious and flexible approach, as this would help the Rules remain responsive to a range of possible future arrangements.
In saying that, we encourage the committee to carefully consider mechanisms that maintain a balance, whether through a more broad-based Rules provision, internal protocols, improved sessional orders or flexible guidelines.
We look forward to the discussion. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses.
Senator Batters: Thank you to all of you for being here today.
First of all, I looked up some statistics about each of your levels of participation in Question Period over the time frame that each of you have been in your leadership capacities in your groups: Senator Tannas for about six years as the Leader of the Canadian Senators Group; Senator Saint-Germain for the last almost four years as Facilitator of the Independent Senators Group; and since Senator White became the Deputy Leader of the Progressive Senate Group about 18 months ago.
For those time frames, for ministerial Question Period and regular Question Period, Senator Saint-Germain, in those almost four years, you have asked three questions during ministerial Question Period and only six during Senate Question Period.
Senator White, you asked just two questions during ministerial Question Period and three questions during Senate Question Period over that time frame.
Senator Tannas, in those almost six years, you asked three questions during ministerial Question Period. It was more in Senate Question Period; it was 20, but 8 of those were to committee chairs, so only 12 were to the government leader in that time frame.
I was actually very surprised to see how infrequently all of you asked questions in both ministerial Question Period and regular Question Period.
Today, Senator Saint-Germain, in your opening remarks, you referenced holding the government to account about three separate times and indicating that is an important part of our role, while also indicating that holding the government to account is the responsibility of all senators.
Question Period is probably the most important tool on a daily basis to hold the government to account. It is really the time where we get the opportunity as senators to ask the government questions and to force them to answer, and it should be without notice and on demand.
Your statistical numbers don’t really show that you agree with that. Is that true?
The Chair: To whom are you addressing your question?
Senator Batters: To all three.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Batters, for your question.
If I remember well, when I questioned the Government Representative, my question was very polite and to the point.
You are right; I’m not using very often this tool to hold the government to account because I’m the leader of the largest group, and I do believe that it is the responsibility of each and every senator to hold the government accountable for its policies, legislation and so on.
I’m proud of being part of a group that has many senators with expertise who are asking very relevant questions and sometimes difficult questions to answer. Very often, they’re questions that better inform all senators on the situation, the views of the government and the potential solutions to issues that are raised.
This is the reason why I believe and reiterate that it is the role of each and every senator to hold the government accountable.
Senator White: Thank you for your question, Senator Batters. Speaking from the Progressive Senate Group perspective, we only get one question per session. Out of 17, we try to share it around. It comes to the amount of time, but we absolutely agree that Question Period with ministers is essential, and we support having that. But the Progressive Senate Group is very challenged because of our limited time. Very rarely do we get to the second question in Question Period.
Senator Batters: And how about in ministerial Question Period?
Senator White: In ministerial Question Period, it’s the same thing. We will get two, whereas most others will get —
Senator Tannas: It is the same story for us. In addition, for me as leader, I’m not serving my members. They are not demanding that I hold the government to account. They like to hold the government to account. They like to ask the questions.
I’ll ask questions of the government leader in the Senate, and I think you would find that many of the questions I asked the government leader — in the 12 questions I have asked — have been specifically about the process in the Senate and about issues that, as a group, we feel are very important. But it is our members who also disproportionately get less amount of time to ask questions and who want to ask questions. It is our job to sort it out, and I put their priorities ahead of my own.
Senator Yussuff: First, let me thank you for being here to listen to your perspective.
I should express my own bias before I ask the question. I find ministerial Question Period to be of value to the chamber but also in the context of current issues that we are dealing with in the country due to the unique opportunity it gives senators to get some answers to things that are very important and happening in the country.
I also believe that in the context of ministers coming here, it allows senators to enhance the chamber because this institution sometimes struggles with the question of relevance. When a minister comes here, it brings it back into focus that we have a responsibility to what the Constitution was intending in the first place.
This is just my bias, and I’ve sat here for four years, but I do find the daily Question Period to be a complete waste of my time. I will be very direct about it. It’s not that the questions and answers are not relevant. I just find that somebody who is not sitting in cabinet yet attempting to answer a question without fully knowing the debate that is happening to be problematic in the context of the seriousness of this place, and I struggle with that reality.
I do recognize we have a new leader, and he is attempting to do that, but I think it will not do anything for me. This has nothing to do with who is the government leader in the Senate.
I think that in the context of ministers coming here, the frequency in which they come is something we should work toward building upon, because I think it brings us — on the work we do in committee and legislation — into a context with their interactions being far more helpful to the chamber going forward, but it also enhances the public image of this place that, too often, we don’t get a chance unless ministers are coming here.
I’m hoping we could agree on what would be the frequency of inviting ministers to come. I do believe that if you are fortunate enough to get on the roster to ask a question, it helps members to enhance their participation in the issues that we are working on to a large extent.
The two things I have in the broad context are the following: When we have Committee of the Whole, which we recently did on Bill C-5, on a personal level because I was the sponsor of the bill, I found the chamber was better informed about the bill due to the importance of this piece of legislation, and the witnesses were also there to partake in that debate. I thought it brought the level of conversation to a whole different place. Had we done that simply at the committee level, I don’t think the chamber would have benefited in that way.
I will ask you to reflect on that because you may see it from a different perspective. I have never asked a question of the government leader in the Senate in the four years I have been here. I have expressed my bias why I don’t do it: because I don’t think the answers I would get would satisfy me to a large extent.
I don’t speak for anybody else. I just speak for myself in that regard. I think that having more frequent opportunities for ministers to come here is something that is really worthy of our effort to figure out how we can do that in a way that can enhance this institution.
Senator Tannas: I agree with your observations. I think our own Question Period is what we make of it. I like the tone today. It can still be adversarial, and it can still show the reality that we are a political institution, but it is being done with a little more clarity, a little less hyperbole and a lot of respect.
It is early days, but I am hopeful this will bring you and me back to something we enjoy. I’m listening and feeling engaged again.
Regarding two ministers a week — never mind what it does to our own opportunities and the opposition’s opportunities by diluting their opportunity to hold the government to account as the Senate opposition — there is the practical matter. As the leader, I watched our former government leader struggle to produce one minister every two weeks. It was always a last-minute thing in which there was arm-twisting. He was begging, and somebody would show up.
Now we’re saying that we are going to have four ministers every two weeks. Practically, I’m not sure that’s possible. I do not know where we would get a candid answer or a promise from the government that they would produce four ministers every two weeks when we have watched, over the previous X number of years, there be a struggle to get one minister every two weeks.
Senator Saint-Germain: I will return to this.
I wish to take the opportunity to state — further to the question from Senator Batters regarding the proportionality principle — that the largest group in the Senate currently has the same slots in Question Period as the opposition. The number is 3.5 times larger within the group. For me, based on the expertise of my colleagues within the Independent Senators Group, it is another reason why I am leaving my place to my knowledgeable colleagues.
To your point, Senator Yussuff, I have only two comments. Senator Tannas, you raised pragmatic dimensions to this question.
My first comment is that we sit each year between 28 and 30 weeks. It is easy to have one minister a week, although I know we need to plan accordingly. Those are not criteria for the Rules. I concur with Senator White that in the Rules, we must put the principles or the basics. However, the logistics or details are for the leaders, such as the Government Representative in a government motion, for instance, or a sessional order.
The Committee of the Whole — when we have that — should be assimilated as ministerial Question Period. I believe that those are important when we have complex bills or questions that we want to hold the government accountable on as part of the public discourse.
You are right; personally, I was also pleased to be there to listen to all the questions and answers on Bill C-5.
The downside though — and we need to work on it — is that the committees studying those bills should also be able, at the very least, to receive the same minister once to ask more precise questions. With the Committee of the Whole on Bill C-5, we had many hours. I do not remember the number. It was much more than 1.5 hours. The flexibility on this is important.
That said, back to ministerial Question Period, I believe we need to insert this into the Rules so that this institution will have this process enshrined in our Rules. Eventually, over time, any other government would have to explain why they might not agree to regularly send ministers.
The invitation would be there for any type of government. Our role is to hold accountable any government — the government of the day and all future governments of the day. I don’t see any big issue.
Currently, we have close to 40 ministers, some of whom are not managing files or portfolios that are often part of public conversation. We still need to listen to them and be able to question them. I believe that this opportunity could be had with one minister a week — when possible — in Question Period.
Senator White: I wish to add that although I did enjoy Bill C-5 at Committee of the Whole, it was more about the nature of the discussions. I agree with Senator Saint-Germain that the committee should have had an opportunity to deal with the same witnesses.
I would add that if a minister refuses to appear, legally we cannot compel him. The Rules do not have that kind of expectation. I think political accountability would play a role. It is something we should be able to regularly highlight to the government. To build in inconsistencies or contingencies, for example, for scheduling ministers, I think we can do that. However, I still agree that we should have ministers. There is a way to get them if we formalize it.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I would like to hear each of your perspectives. You said that this provided some flexibility or some balance. I support this ministerial Question Period. Let’s proceed on the premise that each of you supports it and that, typically, a sessional order won’t remain a sessional order indefinitely.
How can we strike a balance between being overly prescriptive and allowing for some flexibility? Senator Tannas spoke about this. What should we keep in terms of flexibility, and what should be changed in the Rules?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I am not sure. I would love to see this formalized in the Rules. Maybe it is as simple as saying that at a minimum, the Senate — the leaders and the government leader — will facilitate a ministerial Question Period for a minimum number of times, and then it specifies that the leaders will craft a sessional order that suits the time at the beginning. For example, within a certain number of days of Parliament opening, there will be a sessional order that will apply to the regularity beyond the minimum and other details. It may be something as simple as that to get it on the books and put it on the shoulders of the leaders of the day to match what senators want with what ministers and the government are willing to provide.
Senator Saint-Germain: On my side, I see it as relevant for ministerial Question Period — as it is for Question Period with the Government Representative in the Senate — to have the basics in the Rules to state what we decide: Is it once a week or once every other week? This is the basic principle, and we allow for the proportionality principle to apply.
We can discuss the status of the opposition. They may deserve — I do not oppose that — to have more questions than other groups, but not in a way or such a number that it becomes unfair to all other non-partisan senators.
We need to discuss this. The logistics of it could be articulated in a sessional order. Sometimes we could add that when the leaders agree, we could say that this week’s Question Period with a minister will be extended by, say, 30 minutes because we know it is a complex issue or bill or whatever it is. However, the basics or the principles should be in the Rules. Then, a government motion can be discussed between leaders.
What I do not like is that a sessional order is a deviation from the Rules. In the current situation, working for the future of this institution, I don’t like anything that allows for a deviation from the fundamental principles of our Rules.
Senator White: I do not have anything to add, other than to say I think a sessional order would be able to accommodate the flexibility that we want in addition to having the principles in the Rules.
Senator Surette: Thank you for your opening remarks.
Senator Tannas, you sparked my interest with your first comments in your opening remarks when you said that you have a different opinion or perception now than you had last year with the change in the Government Representative’s Office.
Before we discuss if it’s once a week, twice a week or even the minister in front of us for Question Period, I was somewhat surprised we as a Senate expect one person to answer any question we have for the government while in the other chamber, they have a number of ministers and secretaries of state who answer questions. Our expectations have to be lower if we expect one person to answer those types of questions.
It seems to me the major issue is a logistical issue as to whether ministers can appear or not based on their schedules. If that weren’t an issue, what is the downside or the disadvantage of having a minister in front of us versus the Government Representative’s Office in front of us? In other words, if we had the option and if there were no barriers, what would you choose: the Government Representative’s Office or a minister every day?
Senator Tannas: I think a mixture is ideal. If we can get senior ministers who can discuss the questions asked beyond their portfolio, those are rich conversations we have had. We could get to the point that you mentioned where we can ask questions a little more widely of someone at the cabinet table, and for the other ministers who are newer and more focused on a portfolio, fine.
What we’re finding is our Government Representative — this Government Representative — is absolutely determined to get answers quickly. So far, he has delivered them. I believe that will spur on more good questions. What we had before was shouting at the rain. Good questions went unanswered for months.
A mixture would be ideal. It would keep senators engaged. It would give us a much broader ability to ask great questions.
I am in my thirteenth year. After 12 years of watching Question Period disintegrate into something — not even disintegrate because when I first came here, it was terrible. It was the same as what you probably experienced when you first arrived.
It has gotten better. I see its worth. We should not smother it with a ministerial Question Period format that I worry the government will be unwilling or unable to deliver on.
Senator Saint-Germain: My answer to your question would be a minister. This is the reason why: From my standpoint, with respect to the previous Government Representatives and the current one, their role as far as Question Period is concerned is to be a liaison between the department and the minister who is managing the topic and the subject of the question and then relay the answers to senators. Their main role here is to shepherd government legislation within the Senate in a timely manner. This is the point.
On the other hand, if I were a minister, I would like to come to the Senate because senators have a lot of power, including disruptive powers, if I may say so. They would have to vote on my legislation. They would have to understand and question my portfolio, challenges, policies, orientations and so on. I would like to come and tell them what we are doing and to exchange ideas with them.
Obviously, my answer is, yes, a minister.
Senator White: Likewise, yes, a minister for all those reasons outlined by my colleagues.
The Chair: It sounds like a documentary that I am familiar with.
Senator Burey: Senators, I am new to this committee. It is an honour serving on this committee.
I wish to make a statement. I will be precise. I agree that for democracy and accountability, we need a Question Period. Now we are deciding whether to codify it, its flexibility and the parameters around that.
More specifically, I want each of you to answer: Should it be codified? That is the first question.
The second question is on the parameters, which would then lead us into whether we would have a sessional order in the codification of it in our Rules.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Burey. I like this pragmatic question.
From my standpoint, ministerial Question Period should be enshrined in our Rules and become part of our normal proceedings. This is the basic principle.
I also understand that flexibility is important. We should enshrine the principle and frequency, which will be detrimental with the majority of senators, including the principle of proportionality.
Given the current situation of the opposition, which is exceptional, there could be negotiations between or amongst leaders to ensure the opposition also receives fair treatment that represents the opposition and is not detrimental to other senators. That is the first point.
Second, for many years, leaders have discussed with the government the best way to have such a minister, given the context and bills we have to study. It is easy to do that. In the weeks where we do not have specific bills — specific government bills, I mean — then we could agree on a list of ministers who do not have bills to table in the Senate but whom we could still witness and hear. All departments, from my standpoint, serve Canadians. It is our role to hold them accountable and to better understand what is happening in the various departments.
Senator White: Thank you, Senator Burey, for your question. I, too, am new to this committee. This is my first committee meeting as a member.
To answer your question, while flexibility certainly has served this process well in our practice, formalizing it in the Rules will ensure consistency, fairness and longevity. A rules-based framework provides the institutional continuity across Parliament and leadership changes. I think it is good.
Second, more importantly, it sends a signal to Canadians and cabinet that the Senate takes its accountability role seriously and expects regular engagement from the executive.
Senator Tannas: Yes, I think there should be codifying lightly with a minimum of lots of flexibility but also responsibility for sessional orders with details that make sense for the time and potentially some principles that talk about proportionality, weighing proportionality with the role of the opposition. In terms of strict proportionality in this instance, there needs to be recognition of the role of the opposition in these sessions. It’s about finding some wording that could make its way into the Rules such that we would have the flexibility to recognize that there needs to be disproportionality now because the opposition’s numbers are so small, but when things are more normal, it is more proportional.
The Chair: The sessional order would be implementing a rule rather than overriding a rule.
Senator Tannas: Exactly.
Senator Downe: Another way of looking at ministerial Question Period is that since the Senate is not a confidence chamber, Question Period is grafted onto an institution, and Question Period should, therefore, be different — an off-Broadway production, as Senator Tannas indicated.
Would it not be more productive if senators focused on information from ministers and information from the government leader as opposed to “gotcha” moments, and we could use that information to assist us in legislation? Second, we should use the time with the ministers to raise awareness of issues that they may not be paying much attention to in their departments.
Ministers, as we all know, are extremely busy. For the last minister we had in, as you know, our colleague Senator Marty Deacon raised concerns about sports betting advertising. It struck me that the minister responsible for the CRTC had not thought too much about that and had not thought about his opportunity to address that through the CRTC, so I think it was a helpful information exchange for him.
The other part of it is it was helpful to raise among senators collectively information and concerns that Senator Deacon and others have about this. That may be a more productive role for Question Period and ministerial Question Period, which leads to my concern that if the opposition continues to see the role as a “gotcha” moment, should they continue to participate at a higher rate? Does that lead to the uniqueness of the new Senate, or should we continue as we are with the status quo?
The Chair: You would wish to hear from all senators?
Senator Downe: All senators. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for your question. You are the master of seeking information from ministers and from the government leader through your questions and written questions, which you use so effectively.
I want to come back to the previous question and take my time for that. If you are going to codify in the Rules something around this, you need to ensure that you mention what happens if it doesn’t happen. If ministers don’t appear, what do we do? Do we have no Question Period or revert to the other way?
To go back to what you were saying, everything you said is so true. That is behavioural. That is not something that needs to be in the Rules. It is how we conduct ourselves. I agree with you fully. Those are when these rich moments happen when there is that exchange. You can see it. We have all been there when something is happening, and you can see there is an exchange going on that is of enormous value to those two people and to all of us in our work.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your question. It is an important one.
From my standpoint, the status quo is not the best option. We will not have many opportunities to enshrine into the Rules the principles that will allow for us to organize our work in a way where we can welcome government ministers and have exchanges with them. The way we ask questions, depending upon good faith or the senator, may lead to better information and must normally lead to better information. I concur with you.
Additionally, regarding the written questions we can send on specific issues, that is very important. I remember my first conversation with you, Senator Downe. You invited us into your office in the Victoria Building, and you spoke about access to information and the importance of written questions. You were absolutely right. Thank you for that.
From my standpoint, we cannot rely on the Government Representative of the day. We need to update our Rules and proceedings in order to — at last — have this Senate reform enshrined and respected as per our Rules.
Once again, flexibility, government motions and leader negotiations, including with the specific current situation of the opposition — they are low in numbers. We know that. At the same time, over-representation of the opportunities for the opposition is not the best way to move forward. It is not the most democratic way.
Senator White: Thank you for your question, senator. I absolutely agree that it should be a collaborative discussion and exchange of ideas.
I would be a little concerned if we actually had a minister coming and presenting to us per se, because I think we would run the risk of just listening and not engaging and not having the opportunity. I like the idea of Question Period. I like the idea of being able to ask questions, and it is important for democracy and for us in our roles of accountability.
The Chair: Colleagues and witnesses, that was the first round. You committed to an hour, and there are a few minutes left. I have two questioners for the second round. I wonder if we could have both ask their questions and use that as an occasion for you to answer both questions, and then we can thank you for your testimony.
Senator Batters: Senator Tannas, earlier today, you referred to the good answers recently being given by the new Senate government leader, Senator Moreau, and you also said that he seems “determined to get answers quickly.”
This is what I have noticed: In the last few weeks during Question Period, it has become obvious from the new Senate government leader that for questions from senators from all groups other than the opposition Conservatives, in the vast majority of those cases, the new Senate government leader pulls out a long 8.5 x 14 page and reads the answer out and then reads the supplementary answer too. When an opposition Conservative senator gets up to ask a question, miraculously there is no 8.5 x 14 page in the hands of Senator Moreau. Senator Gold did this too, but it’s much more frequent and obvious now.
It seems quite obvious that the Government Representative’s Office is receiving a heads-up from senators in your groups — perhaps not all of them — in the vast majority of cases about the questions that he will be asked, which is why the answers perhaps seem to be good. This is even on specific and fairly unusual questions, not the main topics of the day that you would expect him to be prepped for.
My question to each of you would be: Is that happening? Is there a request from the Government Representative’s Office that they get a heads-up on questions that senators will ask?
Senator Yussuff: Given that we all come here with different histories and backgrounds, the point that Senator Downe made should not be lost on us. We all learn through experience. I think what Senator Downe has consistently done with his approach to Question Period is unique, and we can all learn from that. If every senator were privy to thinking about doing a background access to information and then drafting a question, it would make it far more interesting.
I have two quick points picking up on Senator Surette’s point: The current representative of the government is not in cabinet. That is a choice of the Prime Minister. That could change at any time. The Prime Minister could wake up one morning and say, “I’ve decided for good reasons that I will have the Government Representative in the Senate in cabinet.” That person will then be in a totally different position in regard to knowledge, experience and opportunities in terms of questions that people ask. We need to envision that. The Rules should envision that reality. It could happen if the government chooses to do so.
The second point is also very important in the context of tone in this place. The notion of the opposition is not entrenched in the Rules of the Senate. It is only a new reality of this place. It could go back to that way. I don’t know why it is that way. We did it because there was the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois, and then, of course, people were trying to gerrymander the Rules to do certain things. Senators at the time believed they should change the Rules to define the opposition, but that wasn’t always in the Rules.
My point is that if you go back and look throughout the history, the Rules did not always do that in the context of there being an official opposition written in. There were two parties in the Senate, granted, that ran the place, and they operated a certain way, but in the context of the Rules, that is a fairly new reality, and we should also take that into consideration. There is nothing to say we can’t change the Rules back to the way it was.
I wanted to get your response to that.
The Chair: These will be the last comments from our witnesses on these questions.
Senator Tannas: On the history, I think it would be good, by the way, if your report encapsulated the history of Question Period in the Senate because it is relatively new.
The Chair: We have a document that, perhaps, should be appended to our report.
Senator Tannas: On what you were saying, Senator Yussuff, what you asserted is not my understanding.
You can go to the walls, and we used to look at the walls with the pictures of all the government leaders and the Leaders of the Opposition who went back to Confederation. I don’t think it was something to do with the Bloc Québécois that invented opposition in the Senate. It has always been there. That is my understanding.
There may have been something in the Rules or in the Parliament of Canada Act that needed to be clarified, but there has been a Leader of the Opposition steadily in the Senate since Confederation.
I think the key to this is getting the principles right in the Rules and giving flexibility. On this question which we have come back to about the small numbers and the disproportionality that happens, maybe it is as simple as having proportionality but there must always be a minimum percentage reserved for the opposition, regardless of their size. It could be something as simple as that which would recognize both, and you can either take that on, or you can leave it to leaders of the day to wrestle with that.
Again, I don’t think we should swamp or suffocate our Question Period for ministerial Question Period in the Rules.
Thank you.
The Chair: Do you have a response to Senator Batters’ specific question with respect to notice?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
I think what we are seeing right now, Senator Batters, is good, crisp, clear political questions and good, crisp, clear political answers. I’m happy with that. They are done with respect, smiles and humour. It’s great.
Then, on this issue of answers, questions and heads-up, I don’t know. Some of my people do, I believe, give a heads-up, and some do not. However they choose to go at it, I believe it will influence the quality of the answers and the speed of the answers that they are seeking from the government leader.
Senator Saint-Germain: I will continue. It is the same in my group. It is a relation between each senator and the Government Representative’s Office.
As for myself, I sent my questions or the topic of my questions, because I want the Government Representative to be able to find the answer and answer me rather than say, “I don’t have the answer, and I will answer next week.” That’s the first point.
To Senator Yussuff’s question, should the Government Representative be in cabinet? My personal view is “no” because I believe that only elected members of Parliament should be part of the cabinet. That doesn’t mean that he should not attend cabinet meetings. I don’t know if it is happening now, but I know that it happened before.
My view regarding Question Period — and I also don’t have historical information on this — is this is the upper chamber. I believe that if we are to maintain Question Period, which we want to do, we have to maintain or design an upper chamber style for Question Period that is different from the opposition — whichever opposition it is — mimicking or repeating the question that was asked yesterday or this morning by the opposition to win political points and to win partisan points.
I believe this is not helpful and this is not bringing added value. From my standpoint, we need to be more non-partisan in our challenging of the government, and I say “challenging” because once again — all of us — we ask questions that are important and help Canadians better understand what is happening, and we complement the other place, which has a different role.
This is why I hope that we will move forward in updating the criteria and the principles that should found our ministerial Question Period.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you very much. To Senator Batters’ question, I’m not aware of any requests from the Government Representative’s Office for their questions. I do know that within our group, there are exchanges and people who may have respective relationships with them, as well as with the previous Government Representative’s Office.
To Senator Yussuff’s question, regrettably, I don’t have the history of Question Period, but I do see some value in having a minister from the House come over. I do see the value of an opposition. I see a role for them.
As we move forward, I think that we’ll see more of a blending and homogeneous process.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Thank you to our witnesses. I very much appreciate it. This is the first set of witnesses on this reference, and we thank you for being here.
Colleagues, let us continue the next portion of our discussion, which is with respect to this study, and then we will open it up for a broader engagement on our work plan.
It has been the practice in some committees to do this in camera. There is a desire not to go in camera but to continue publicly. I’m fine with that, if that is the will of the group.
If it is the will of the group, I have a couple of updates to provide on this study. Senator Moreau and Senator Carignan were not available to appear today, but they are available to appear on October 28 at 10:30 a.m. I suggest that we confirm their appearance for that date and time.
Is it the will of the committee to hear from these two senators at that time?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Great.
We had a brief discussion at the last meeting with respect to our work plan. I wonder if there is any more appetite to hear from witnesses on this study.
You will recall at our last discussion that we thought it was premature to do that and that we should hear from our collective leadership first. Is that still the will of the committee, or are there experts whom you have identified that you think could add to our understanding?
Senator Batters: From the testimony that we heard today, I don’t think we’re in any position to write a report. Obviously, we have to see what will be said after the next meeting where we’ll hear from the government leader and Senator Carignan, who has previously been both the government leader and the opposition leader and who came up with the idea for this, because we didn’t have a government leader at the time. That will be valuable testimony.
But I think we definitely need to hear more than that. And I’m wondering if the Library of Parliament analysts have come up with any additional potential witnesses of experts or academics.
The Chair: You will recall there was a list distributed of academic experts.
Senator Batters: I recall that, but what I also recall is that very few on there had any experience watching a Senate Question Period.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Yes, we can provide an updated list that would bring various views and go further into the information.
The Chair: Let’s ask that of the Library of Parliament.
Senator Yussuff: Most of us — not all of us but a good number of us — are relatively new to the chamber in the context of its history, but there are senators who have been serving here for quite a significant time. If they wish to come and present to the committee in terms of their perspective, I think it will complement what we are looking at. By all means, we should try to hear from them. I don’t know if we’ve had any requests, but we should extend that to the best we can.
The Chair: We have circulated to all senators a request for their input. I have had some conversations with a couple of senators who have asked if we can extend that by a week. I’m completely open to that if the committee is okay with that. I think it is important to give that opportunity, and perhaps culling from that witness list would be something we could discuss as we move forward.
Senator Yussuff: I’m looking forward to hearing from Senator Carignan because of his role in the past and how he has functioned in the chamber, because I wasn’t here during that whole period, and it would be enlightening for the committee and also enhance what we are looking at currently.
Senator Burey: I have a question as to how we are going to get the data that we need from what we have been doing. I think for us to be informed about what we may put in the flexibility structure of a codified rule in our Rules, do we have enough information? The questions are the following: How many Question Periods did we have? Who were the ministers? Was there context? Were there repeat questions? Have we done an analysis on ourselves as to what it has looked like?
The Chair: The Library of Parliament did prepare a briefing note, but perhaps you could respond?
Mr. Delisle: Yes, senator, that is a good question. In fact, we could provide a list of data about how many days were concentrated to ministerial Question Period and who testified and such information. We will prepare something.
Senator Yussuff: This is relevant because of the questions raised by the leaders who were here this morning. I don’t know the answer, but how many times has an invitation been extended to a minister but they didn’t appear? We don’t know what the reasons are. It would be good to have that data, if ministers didn’t come.
The Chair: If I can rely on previous experience, I suspect that data has been preserved. And there is often a conversation among leaders to have secondary choices to deal with the availability of preferred ministers.
Senator Petitclerc: I just wanted to, first, support having Senator Carignan attend — I think that’s important — and having the representative of the government in the Senate. We spoke about possibly having former Senator Gold as well. I think there is value in that in the sense that perhaps we can find a way for you to pitch in at some level, because I think there is value in knowing the evolution of how it is to try to get ministers. Is it getting easier? What are the challenges?
Senator Tannas mentioned the challenges in getting someone every two weeks. We need to be able to identify those challenges and maybe the changes with the years and hopefully the evolution. I would support that.
The Chair: If I could pause there and ask if there is a consensus that I seek former Senator Gold’s participation in a future witness list?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Great.
Senator Downe: Obviously, the request from the Senate for a minister goes to somebody in the government. I assume there’s a minister responsible for the Senate somewhere in the organizational chart, and I think that minister should appear before our committee. In other words, we put the request in: What are the criteria they’re using to decide who goes? What are the challenges they have?
The Chair: If there is consensus, I will seek to invite said minister — it’s Minister MacKinnon at this point.
Just briefly, you have all received the letter from the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators seeking this committee’s support to move forward with the recommendations that it made during the Forty-third Parliament with respect to the membership of the Ethics Committee. I don’t think this is necessarily the next topic for our meetings, but I would like it to be considered in our list of future topics.
I would ask now if there is any further comments about future topics beyond this, although we have certainly not exhausted this. Are there questions or studies that individual senators would like to raise?
Senator Saint-Germain: First, I have one comment on our current topic regarding ministerial Question Period. I want to remind us that we have a deadline. It is important that we plan our work accordingly so that if we make changes, we have time between now and the end of June to insert the changes in the Rules.
Many of us will remember a suggestion by Senator Ringuette — which this committee had worked on in the previous Parliament — regarding a pilot project for revisiting the committee’s schedule. I would like us to put it as a priority as well within our work.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Batters: Just on that last comment from Senator Saint-Germain, when we were talking about that pilot project and when we came to the end of the discussion about it, I thought it was actually the Independent Senators Group that had come to this committee and said, “We’re not doing that. We don’t want to go ahead with that.”
I had vocally indicated for many weeks that we weren’t willing to go ahead with it, but I thought what put an end to the discussion about that pilot project was that, I thought, your group had indicated to this committee that we didn’t want to go ahead with the pilot project.
Senator Saint-Germain: There is some confusion there, senator. We are a democratic group. The nuance I have to make is that some senators within the Independent Senators Group were not in accordance with the majority, because we surveyed our colleagues, but the majority would agree.
Senator Petitclerc: On a different possible topic, I wasn’t part of this group at the time, but there was some work starting on non-affiliated senators. My understanding is that this did not come to a conclusion. I would very much like that we revisit or continue what we started.
The Chair: We’ll add that to the list. I’ll ask for some briefing material on the previous discussions, which can perhaps put a context to this.
Senator Batters: Thank you for bringing that up, Senator Petitclerc, because we had several meetings about that. That shouldn’t just go into the ether somewhere and never be heard about again. In fact, there are many committees and what we have seen in the chamber recently is that they are bringing back the papers and those sorts of things to formally put those items back on the agenda of the committee. I think that especially for the non-affiliated senators study, we spent quite some time at this committee — several meetings — dealing with it. We should at least have the opportunity to decide if we want to continue with it or produce a report or not or what have you. Since that has happened, the number of non-affiliated senators has gone down, but it is still valuable work that we did.
Senator Harder, with respect to the issue you raised about the Ethics Committee, I guess you wrote a letter to yourself in that one because you were the chair of both committees. On this topic, I believe we have seen this request come before from the Ethics Committee to this committee. I can’t recall what was done with it, but perhaps our Library of Parliament analysts can look that up. I believe that we did briefly discuss it as a committee and, for some reason, didn’t pursue it, but I don’t remember what happened.
The Chair: I definitely asked the Library of Parliament. My understanding is that the Ethics Committee report referencing this matter was adopted in the chamber and sent to the Rules Committee for implementation. And the Rules Committee, in its wisdom, decided not to proceed. The Ethics Committee has resent in the context of this Parliament what they sent in the context of the Forty-third Parliament. It is now for us as a committee to determine whether or not we wish to move forward, and if not, why? And if so, how?
Colleagues, if that is the near-term set of issues —
Senator K. Wells: I would like to suggest to consider a study on the role, purpose and format of petitions as a way to hear from the public on issues and matters of public concern. For example, it is my understanding that we only accept written petitions at the Senate while the House of Commons has moved to e-petitions, making it more accessible and expedient for the public to share. I think that would be an interesting study and a chance for us to maybe look at modernizing some of our own rules in this area.
The Chair: Thank you. Would there be a consensus to ask the Library of Parliament for a briefing note on this subject?
Mr. Delisle: Yes. We can prepare this and also answer Senator Batters on the Ethics Committee.
The Chair: With that, what I would suggest is we have witnesses for 10:30 a.m. on October 28, as I indicated. We could meet at 9:30 a.m. if we can get the witnesses that we have sought — that is to say whether Senator Gold would be available. If we can, we could start at 9:30 a.m. with him. If we are unable to do that, is it agreed we start at 10:30 a.m.?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee: And Minister MacKinnon.
The Chair: And Minister MacKinnon, yes, exactly.
For the material that was prepared for the non-affiliated senators subject, we’ll have it recirculated, if that’s agreeable.
I think we should decide, having read the motion, whether we need to seek a reference from the chamber or whether it could be done under our existing —
Ms. Fortin: It’s to refer papers —
The Chair: Yes. It’s a motion in the chamber to refer evidence from the previous Parliament to this committee. I can make that as appropriate in the coming days, if that is agreeable.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are we able to cope with finishing now?
The clerk will let you know whether we have the two witnesses for 9:30 a.m. If we can, we will. If we cannot, it will be 10:30 a.m.
Ms. Fortin: Currently, we have Senator Moreau and Senator Carignan scheduled for October 28. There is nothing scheduled for October 21. Do you want me to try to get former Senator Gold and Minister MacKinnon for October 21 or for 9:30 a.m. on October 28?
The Chair: We’ll see what their availability is, but we definitely want to fit them in.
Ms. Fortin: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)