THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 21, 2025
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:30 a.m. [ET] to study the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister.
Senator Peter Harder (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all senators as well as viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Peter Harder. I’m a senator from Ontario, and I chair the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
I would ask each of my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator K. Wells: Senator Kristopher Wells, Alberta.
Senator D. M. Wells: Senator David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Surette: Allister W. Surette from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, a senator from Charlottetown.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, we will continue today with our study on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister.
We’re very pleased to welcome our former colleague, the Honourable Marc Gold, P.C., former Government Representative in the Senate and former senator and, I dare say, the one who gave us the charge to conduct this study. I think we have a rich conversation in front of us.
I want to thank you, former Senator Gold, for appearing before our committee, and I would invite you to make your opening statement, after which we’ll have questions from your Senate colleagues.
Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., former Government Representative in the Senate and former senator, as an individual: Thank you, Senator Harder. Hi, everybody, and all that are watching. It’s a pleasure to be here with you.
Indeed, the mandate that you’re studying grew out of discussions that I had with leaders — some around the table and others — because we thought, collectively, that this was an important issue for you to consider.
The sessional order that gave you the mandate to study this included, essentially — with one change regarding an issue of bells — the basic procedure that we had had in place, effectively first adopted in December 2021 and negotiated, in part, with the then-interim Leader of the Opposition, Senator Housakos. Essentially, what you have before you in terms of suggestions, with that one change if the bells are ringing, is the way it’s been for some time.
I have followed with interest the testimony that was given already, and I note that one of the key concerns during your meetings and in the discussions that we had as leaders was the process for selecting the ministers to appear during ministerial Question Period. Throughout my time as Government Representative, I did my best to ensure that the preferences of the opposition and all recognized groups were considered and given priority. To facilitate that, our office conducted formal consultations with staff representatives from each recognized party and parliamentary group to identify their preferred ministers to appear, and we also engaged directly with non-affiliated senators to ensure that their views were also considered in this process.
I might add as well that during my time, my participation in the Cabinet committee on Operations and Parliamentary Affairs, with the support of the then government House leaders and the Prime Minister, reinforced the importance that our office felt and the importance to the Senate of ministerial Question Period as a valid and important forum for ministers to interact with senators on policy and on their mandates.
In my opinion, the current process for ministerial Question Period has functioned effectively. I think the three ministerial appearances that have already taken place since the fall session began testify to that.
I also believe that the time limits that we established through the sessional order have worked well. They’ve maximized the 64-minute time frame, reducing lengthy preambles and encouraging more focused questions, and this, I would like to think, puts a greater onus on ministers to provide substantive and robust answers.
I’ve been advised — and I didn’t do the count myself — that in the last two appearances, those of Minister Hodgson and Secretary of State McLean, a total of 40 questions were posed in each session, and I think that balance between questions and answers allowed a significant number of senators — at least a greater number of senators — to participate fully in the proceedings.
I agree with previous witnesses and some of you who questioned them that ministerial accountability is an important cornerstone of our parliamentary system, and I do believe that regular appearances by ministers, whether through committee engagements or through ministerial Question Period, are important and, indeed, essential to maintain their accountability.
However, given the complex demands on federal ministers, including their obligations to the House of Commons and within cabinet, I do believe it is appropriate that the Government Representative in the Senate and their office continue to coordinate this important process. It should take place, as we tried to do, with a strong expectation that the preferences of the opposition and all recognized Senate groups are meaningfully considered. If not, then it falls on the government to explain why a particular minister may not be available to appear.
With regard to the question before you, I do believe it’s appropriate to entrench this model permanently in the Rules of the Senate to provide future governments with a consistent mechanism for maintaining ministerial Question Period. But, of course, this is for you to determine. Sessional orders are very useful and, at times, necessary to accommodate our evolving practices, but I think it’s fair to say that the current model has been successfully implemented for nearly four years. Given, in my view, its demonstrated effectiveness and its relatively broad acceptance, it may be timely to provide it with a more permanent foundation within the Senate’s procedural framework.
Let me add by way of parentheses that I was also persuaded by the comments in your last session of the need to maintain a certain flexibility in the way in which it is implemented through discussions amongst leaders and, I hope, consultations as well within unaffiliated senators, because there are times of the year when a certain souplesse is necessary, given the nature of the work in the Senate and the burden on our time or, indeed, other exigencies that may affect ministers in their work.
That said, should you decide to proceed in the direction of incorporating this in the Rules, my only recommendation — and it’s a minor one — would be to clarify the procedure that would take place in the event that a minister at the last minute was unable to appear. I think Senator Tannas may have raised this. I recall he raised this in his remarks, and I share his concerns on that point. You might consider, if a minister can’t attend at the last minute, to revert to regular Question Period with the Government Representative as a way to proceed. I think that’s only happened once, and I stand to be corrected, but in April 2019, when the then Minister of Public Safety was scheduled to appear but at the last minute had an urgent matter, I believe Question Period proceeded with my predecessor, and I think that’s the right way to go.
Let me underline again, though, what I said before, that I think that in this process of consultation between leaders and the Government Representative, those senators who have chosen to remain non-affiliated should be given an opportunity, as they have been to some degree, to provide both input on ministerial appearances and to participate in those proceedings.
With regard to the timing of it, I heard some discussion of that in the last session. I think the current sessional order requiring that ministerial Question Period be held at least once every second week is a reasonable standard to be maintained. Flexibility, as I mentioned, will be necessary, and has been and can be accommodated, as many of you have suggested through consultations amongst leaders.
One last point, if I may, and then I really look forward to your questions — and here I must confess that I’m very agnostic on this. You’ll recall that at the beginning of the ministerial Question Period, the minister — he or she — would sit next to me, next to the representative of the government. The issue was raised by then-interim leader Senator Housakos, who wanted it changed, and I acceded to that. I heard as well in the last session the important point made about the difference between the Senate and the House of Commons, but I think that this is something that, if you chose to reconsider it, it would not be inappropriate with the traditions of the Senate either, given the fact that you would continue with ministerial Question Period because you’re wanting to “hold the government to account.” In that regard, I can see a case for the minister sitting with the Government Representative and his colleagues as opposed to at the Black Rod’s table, which is the appropriate place, of course, in a Committee of the Whole. I underline my agnosticism here, so it is simply for your consideration.
With that, I will end, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, former Senator Gold.
I have a list, which I will follow, but before I do that, I would like to note for our audience that Senator Batters and Senator White have joined us for this session.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Mr. Gold, it’s a pleasure to see you again and, as always, you are well documented and very professional; it’s much appreciated.
You are now more independent than ever, so I’d like to hear from you. You mentioned the flexibility that comes with setting or negotiating the conditions for Question Period in a sessional order.
In your experience, what improvements could be made to a future sessional order about Question Period? Would it be better to have greater proportionality in the distribution of the order of questions, including those from non-affiliated senators?
Mr. Gold: Thank you for the question; respectfully, it is to be expected, given your concerns.
I heard discussions last time about proportionality and imbalance, according to you and others, with respect to the equal number of questions between the opposition and the largest group. I also heard acknowledgement of the fact that these days, the opposition has very few members compared to several other groups, particularly yours, and an adjustment may be necessary. I will say that. I’ve always done so, despite my independence — and it’s wonderful to be independent in that sense — but I don’t wish to be a mother-in-law, so I’ll let the leaders try to strike a balance in all of that.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Batters: We’re in Blue Jays blue here to celebrate the big victory last night. Incredible.
It’s very nice to see you. It sounds strange to call you “former Senator Gold” now. I want to start out by finding out more about how the Liberal government actually selects the ministers who come to Senate Question Period. Who did you or your office speak to from the government on a regular basis about that? Was it the Office of the Prime Minister, or PMO? Was it the Liberal government minister who deals with the Senate currently, minister Steven MacKinnon, him or his office? How did that process come about, and when and how does the consultation happen with the opposition in the Senate and the other leaders in the Senate?
Mr. Gold: Thank you for your question. It is very nice to see you. I’m not used to being called “former senator.” I go by “Marc,” but that may not be comfortable for everybody here.
Let me start with the latter part. Our office would reach out to all of the offices of the parliamentary groups and caucuses to ask them in a formal way to provide their list in priority of the ministers they would like to see. That was the starting point. I — and, more often, my chief of staff and my office — would communicate with their counterparts in the House leader’s office. My main interlocutor throughout my time as Government Representative was with the House leader. I had several ministers with whom I dealt with, but that was essentially how it worked. Now, my office may have been in touch at times with the PMO. We certainly were in touch with whoever we felt could move things along if we weren’t getting answers in a timely fashion. That was part of our job. Essentially, we took input from the groups and caucuses and transmitted that to the government, typically through the Government Representative’s Office. Other avenues may have been taken by my staff, though not by me personally.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
In that, then, does the Liberal government come back to you with, “This is who we are providing in the next few times,” or do they just provide one time only, “This is who is coming next week”? And were those choices generally choices that had been prioritized, particularly, from the opposition?
Mr. Gold: Senator Batters, it really varied. The government was very well aware of how important it was to us and to many senators that not only ministers appear but the right ministers appear. They also knew that the schedule, by and large, was every two weeks. We would try to get a sense of what the next batch might be, but it was forever changing, both because of circumstances and shifting priorities within the House and, indeed, the Senate.
We were practical people. We understood the importance, especially to the opposition — how to put it? We understood that the opposition had a certain approach to Question Period and a certain view of its importance to the opposition, and we were very careful to keep that in mind in our requests and in our responses. Having said that, we were also mindful of the large number of senators who also have an interest in and see an important role, albeit perhaps a different one than others, for Question Period, and we were trying to be fair to them as well.
We did our best, and I think we largely succeeded. That doesn’t mean we pleased everybody, but I think we were fair within the limits of our ability.
Senator Batters: Just quickly, then, and perhaps you can carry this on, but it sounds like you perhaps watched Secretary of State McLean’s Senate Question Period appearance the last week that we sat, and in your opening, you said that ministerial accountability is an important cornerstone of our democratic process. Frankly, I’m not sure if anybody had Secretary of State McLean on their wish list — she’s not even a minister — to come to Senate Question Period. “That’s not my portfolio,” was by far her most common answer, not just to me but to many senators who asked her questions, despite the fact that she just did a news conference yesterday where she talked about one of the issues, financial crimes against elderly people, where she refused to answer that at Senate Question Period. Would you view that as actually providing us appropriate ministerial accountability?
Mr. Gold: I can’t comment on that, Senator Batters, because I haven’t watched any Question Periods, quite frankly, since I left the Senate. I was advised on the number of questions and answers that were asked. I’m afraid I can’t comment on that.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Welcome, Mr. Gold; it’s a pleasure to see you, as always.
I have a few questions for you. My first concerns your experience and that of the GRO over time when it comes to calling ministers to appear. Have you seen any changes in the process and in the acceptability of this practice? Can you say that over time, and based on the number of times you have done it, that it’s become more and more common and appreciated? Has there therefore been a cultural change on some level between the two chambers?
Mr. Gold: Thank you; it’s a pleasure to see you as well.
The short answer is yes. I had the privilege of serving as Government Representative for five and a half years, and I saw huge progress not only on this issue — I wouldn’t necessarily say acceptability — but also in recognition of the importance and the distinctiveness of the Senate and the key role it plays in our constitutional system.
I always say it to your chair, my predecessor, who really worked hard, without a lot of support, I must admit. However, from the moment I got here, I saw more and more progress in recognizing the importance of the Senate as a complementary partner in the House of Commons. That also applies to ministers’ question periods.
Senator Petitclerc: I have another question. What should that look like? We have this sessional order coming back, and we heard Senator Tannas say that if we choose to include it in the Rules of the Senate, it should remain relatively broad to ensure flexibility. How do you see that balance? Would you go so far as to say that even if we can’t have a rule to compel a minister to appear, there is value in having a rule to call a minister to appear? Would that be better than doing it in a sessional order?
Mr. Gold: If I understand the question correctly, I’m a little uncomfortable with coercion or sanctions.
It may be my temperament, but anyone who has experience working with the government is well aware that due to logistical, political and departmental issues, it’s not always possible or desirable for democracy that a minister appear and turn away from their travels and obligations.
However, it could be included in the rules, and I recommend that the process be included in our rules. It’s easy, because it’s just a question of wording — to maintain some flexibility for the Government Representative, leaders and senators involved in the consultation and the decision, to maintain some flexibility when it comes to our rules, actually.
[English]
That’s how the Senate works generally. We are masters of our own fate.
[Translation]
Therefore, I think we can deal with this issue in the same way.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Gold, it’s always a pleasure to see you and to hear your comments.
I have a brief question related to the discussion this morning.
In the Senate, during a sitting week, there are at least 12 hours per week where we can have ministers’ Question Period. I also assume that there will always be at least 30 ministers in a government’s cabinet. That means we have the option of 360 per week, so it’s possible to have 30 ministers in the 12 hours who can come to the Senate, and that’s quite a considerable number.
Therefore, that’s possible, and there’s the fact that the 30 ministers are in the House of Commons for at least 45 minutes in Question Period, five days a week.
I will tell you what I would prefer, and I’d like you to comment on it: I don’t think it’s unreasonable for 105 senators to request that a minister appear for at least one hour per week. What do you think?
Mr. Gold: Thank you for the question; it’s a pleasure to see you as well.
I’m hesitant, because I believe that it’s not a matter of being “reasonable” as such. I have great respect for the role of the Senate, and I chose it — I was chosen. I’m not convinced that it will always be possible or practical to ensure that ministers given priority by groups and senators will be available every week. I leave it to the committee and the Senate to decide on a fair balance in terms of holding the Government Representative responsible for a minister.
The sessional order provides for a minimum, or at least once every two weeks. Therefore, even if we cut and paste, we can always agree with the leaders to have a minister every week, but I encourage you to keep some flexibility to allow for all the issues I have already mentioned.
Senator Ringuette: I have another question.
You said that a minister might not be able to change their schedule at the last minute to appear here in the Senate. How do you think we could retain that flexibility in the Rules of the Senate?
Mr. Gold: I have never thought about how to write the rules as such. I think that in a situation like that, which has happened only once in the history of the Senate that I know of, it would be more practical to have a clause in the rules indicating that if this happens in the future, the Government Representative would answer questions that day.
I would leave it to the leaders’ discretion and flexibility to give priority to any given minister appearing when they are available to appear. I’ve never thought about how a rule should be worded to deal with a situation like this, which, in my opinion, is exceptional.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Hi, Marc. It is good to see you again. You’re looking well.
When a minister is booked let’s say by the GRO, I’m curious to know what happens next. Did your office in the past perhaps brief the minister on the issues before the Senate and expectation of the kinds of questions that may be asked? If you could just let us into the black box a little bit.
Mr. Gold: Well, thank you. It’s nice to see you too.
Every week, on Mondays, I attended the Operations Committee meeting where I would talk about — and mine was a standard agenda item, so I was always telling them what is going on in the Senate, what issues are concerning senators around particular bills or mandate issues and the like. That was always a regular feature. My office was in touch with the House leaders’ office and, indeed, depending on the nature of the legislative agenda, with ministerial offices, on a daily basis. Ministers who were appearing for Question Period would certainly know what issues were on the minds of senators with regard to their mandates because we were sharing that on a regular basis. But there were occasions as well when I would often meet the minister outside the chamber and wish them luck and say “hi” to them and say, “Look, it is important that the Senate expects real answers; this is different from the House,” especially with newer ministers who are more used to the talking-points approach in the House. I’m not saying that we never got that either, but one of my attempts was to try to help newer ministers understand the different culture in the Senate and the different expectations.
Senator Surette: It is nice to see you, Senator Gold. You will always be Senator Gold to me. Good morning.
Mr. Gold: Good morning.
Senator Surette: I would like to get back to the question of accountability. Some of the questions I asked with the previous witnesses were whether we had the choice, theoretically, of having ministers all the time for the Question Period or the GRO. It seems to me for logical reasons that it has to be a mix between GRO and ministers. Having said that, if that is the reality, I would like to hear your comments as to whether we should add anything to a sessional order or the Rules in relation to follow‑ups or accountability from the ministers. In other words, should there be some type of relationship between when the minister shows up for Question Period and then leaves? Technically, some could argue that there is very little accountability and follow-up because they show up and then leave. I’m curious as to your comments on whether the GRO picks up afterwards or if there is some other mechanism that we could use for follow‑ups and more accountability.
Mr. Gold: Thank you for your question. It is a good one.
I would never be one to say that we can never improve the way we do things. Even during my time, I saw lots of improvements pushed and encouraged by many senators as well. The GRO has a responsibility and takes seriously its responsibility to follow up with the government, whether it is with oral or written questions from senators, whether it is directed to the government representative or to ministers. Ministers themselves also make such engagements.
Perhaps many of you will recall the frustration that many senators expressed with the delay in getting answers back. You’ll recall that Senator Downe was regularly, if I may be informal, on my case on that issue. I suggested that the Senate pass a motion to give a time limit within which the government had to respond. We negotiated the terms of that. We sold it — “we,” my office — to the government, and since that time, the backlog of unanswered questions has been resolved, and now answers to questions, written and oral, come back in a timely fashion.
If there is more that one can do vis-à-vis a ministerial position, I encourage you to raise those issues with my successor or any of the senators with whom you have a relationship in the GRO, because we can always do better. But I think right now, what we put in place at the encouragement of many senators and with the collaboration of the government is an improvement over what it was. Thank you for the question.
Senator Yussuff: Good morning, Senator Gold, and thank you for appearing before us. It would be best to see you in the chamber trying to muddle your way through Question Period, but putting that aside, I have more of a perception question, and you may be able to provide some sense of it.
The two institutions are separate now because of the renovations that are going on in Centre Block. Do you think there is a perception, because of this period that we have been separated, that the Senate is not of the same importance as it once was when it was closer to the other place because we don’t see each other on a frequent basis and we don’t run into each other unless ministers are coming for a presentation on a bill or a particular matter that’s before the Senate? I’m trying to get an understanding of this, because my view is that because we are so distant, there doesn’t seem to be the same reality from colleagues who have spoken about the past.
Mr. Gold: That’s an interesting question, senator.
I’m of two minds. I miss the opportunity that we had — when I first joined the Senate and it was in Centre Block — to walk to the cafeteria. I was there more than the parliamentary restaurant, and that’s where I would bump into members of Parliament — members of the House, I should say, ministers and staff. I miss that a lot. Perhaps Senator Downe and other veterans could speak to this more.
Yes, with the lack of proximity, there is a price for that, and I think, try as we may, it is not the same thing being in different buildings. However, I don’t know that our absence is necessarily tied to a perception of the lesser role for the Senate. I’m not entirely sure — and I wasn’t there — how the Senate was perceived 20 or 30 years ago when it was dominated by government and opposition and everybody was sitting with their caucus colleagues and how the Senate was seen. A case can be made that the complementary nature of the Senate — with a larger number of independent-minded senators, and I would put it that way in terms of the way things are, and the greater activism of the Senate, for better or worse — has forced the government and the House of Commons more generally to take the Senate more seriously. We’re no longer a rubber stamp, and we’re no longer an institution that is shy about sticking up for what we think improvements are. I think it is a mixed bag.
I’m sorry, I’m using up too much time and not giving you a crisp answer. I miss the proximity, for sure, but I think that how the Senate discharges its constitutional function and how senators choose to understand their constitutional function has probably a greater bearing on how the government and other members of parties in the House view the Senate. I’m sorry, that was a classic Marc Gold non-answer. I didn’t want to disappoint you, Senator Yussuff.
Senator Yussuff: I appreciate you muddling through it, nevertheless.
Mr. Gold: “Muddling” is the right word, yes.
Senator Yussuff: My second point, which I have been consistent on: What is the value of the GRO indulging in Question Period given that the representative of the government does not sit in cabinet? I appreciate that, try as they might to provide answers to senators when they ask a question. I’m still at a loss to understand how important this is, and not to diminish the seriousness that might be put to answering the question. Do you see this contributing to value in the Senate on a day-to-day basis when ministers are not here?
The Chair: That is not the mandate of this hearing, but I’ll give you the opportunity to justify your role.
Mr. Gold: Thank you, Senator Harder. I will be careful in what I say.
In my first years as a member in the ISG, I did not find Question Period particularly helpful to me as a senator, and I joined many senators in the Reading Room during Question Period. I did come to understand it differently when I became Government Representative.
First of all, I understood the importance that it still held, not only for opposition senators, but I came to understand that better, and I respect that. Even though I would often complain about the way in which questions were asked and the factual assumptions — entre guillemets — of some of the questions, they were legitimate questions, and it was legitimate for parliamentarians to ask the government, through me, to answer those questions. That was true not only for opposition senators but for other senators, because many very good and, frankly, tough questions came from senators from the parliamentary groups that weren’t affiliated with political parties.
Quite apart from the fact that whatever my personal views were when I took the job in June of 2020, it would not be for me to recommend dispensing with it because senators thought it was important. I understand the frustration that many of you had with my non-answers or the answers that I gave which were the positions of the government, and you might not have liked them very much.
Senator Downe: Senator Gold, it is good to see you again. I don’t have any tough questions for you, you’ll be pleased to know.
I want to thank you for some of the initiatives you took, because ministerial Question Period is one of the components of obtaining information from the government. The other component, of course, is through the position you used to hold, and that’s why I’m pleased you introduced the rule that was accepted by the Senate that written questions now have a time limit on when they have to be answered.
I can also tell you that there seems to be a significant cultural change between the current government and the previous government. I want to pursue that in just a moment and that will be my question, but I want to give you some context.
I have had four written questions that were all answered as required within the time frame. I have four questions currently. The substance of the answers I received in the first round was extremely high. They weren’t just, “We’re doing this. We’re working hard. Much more needs to be done.” There was none of that. It was factual information that was extremely helpful. I asked those questions for some of the projects I’m working on. I also asked them on behalf of Canadians who asked me to find out what is going on.
I was often upset at the lack of information. How difficult was it for you to get information? You mentioned you briefed the ministers. How difficult is it for the ministers to get the information they require to answer the questions that are coming to them at ministerial Question Period? Some ministers seem to be on top of certain files, and others they don’t seem to know anything about.
Mr. Gold: Thank you for the question, Senator Downe.
I’m very pleased that the quality of the answers is improving. That’s a good thing.
My team and I did our very best to get the answers from the government, but at the end of the day, the government or the ministers or their departments were the ones that were responsible for the answers that they gave. I don’t know more than that. We pushed as hard as we could, but we didn’t see their answers before you did when you did get them, however quickly or slowly you did.
I’m delighted that the system continues to improve, and may it continue to do so.
Senator Busson: Senator Gold, it is wonderful to see you again.
After listening to some of the answers to some of your questions, specifically a couple of questions that Senator Yussuff asked, it strikes me in the blue sky of all of this and the existence of the Senate that one of the things that is always a part of what we do as senators is try to increase the relevance and credibility of our actual existence in the Senate. It occurs to me that to have enshrined in the Rules, however they are cast, the need or the importance of having actual government ministers report to the Senate or be accountable to the Senate and thus to the people of Canada would increase our credibility, if this is not just an occasional sessional order but actually enshrined in our Rules. Could you make a comment on my comment, please?
Mr. Gold: Thank you. It is good to see you.
I agree. That’s why I believe that after the almost four years of having had this practice in our sessional orders, it is time to put it in the Rules, with all the caveats that I and others have made about the ongoing importance of maintaining a certain flexibility in terms of the time of year and the particular issues.
I have always believed that the Senate has an important role to play, first and foremost in reviewing government legislation, but also with respect to the studies that it has undertaken to do on its own initiative. With regard to both of those aspects of the Senate’s work, that’s always been important for the Senate, and ministers do regularly appear, albeit before committees. Apart from those circumstances which we have had in the recent past of Committees of the Whole, I do think ministerial appearances before the Senate as a whole add to the education of senators and of ministers, and as a result, it is a good addition to our parliamentary democracy.
As to the relevance of the Senate, actions speak louder than words. It is the quality of the work that we did and that you continue to do with regard to legislation and your studies that is the ultimate test of the value of the Senate. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Busson: As a very quick supplementary, I have watched ministerial Question Period and Committee of the Whole a number of times. From Senator Gold’s position of having experienced the ministers sitting with the representative and sitting at the usher’s desk, you mentioned that you are agnostic on the issue, but if we were to enshrine this process in our Rules, I personally believe that the person should sit with the Government representative. Could you comment on that, please?
Mr. Gold: I’m happy to comment, but it is really not going to add much.
When I say I am agnostic, I can see the arguments on both sides. Symbols are important, but that cuts both ways, because the minister is there representing the government, as Senator Moreau does and Senator LaBoucane-Benson and other members of the GRO, so that makes perfect sense symbolically, after all. But the Senate is different from the House, and I have always believed that the tone of our discussions, debates and even questions should reflect that difference and be less partisan, though no less hard-hitting. Therefore, sitting where the minister currently sits also makes sense. Again, symbols are important, but it is the quality of the questions and the quality of the answers and the pertinence of the minister’s appearance — that is to say, his or her mandate or the legislation that is in the air — that I think is even more important than the symbol. I leave it to you to make your decision.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gold.
Senator Batters: First of all, to briefly comment about this issue — and I’m sure we’ll get into this in future meetings — it is also history. That’s why I and many of my colleagues believe that the minister should not be sitting with the Government Representative or the government Senate leader and that they should be at a different desk. We have a bar at the back of the Senate, and members of the house are only supposed to go up to that bar. Even for the Speech from the Throne, the only person who sits beyond that is the Prime Minister. Anyways, I’m sure we’ll get into that, but it is just a pet peeve of mine.
The other issue I wanted to ask you about, Senator Gold, was Question Period preparation. What is the government’s role in that? What was your experience as the Government Representative for your own Question Period preparation, and, also, what do you know about the ministers’ preparations? I can tell you that when Senator Carignan was in that position, he attended the regular daily Question Period preparation sessions that the government ministers attended, even though he was not a minister. He did — as you did — attend cabinet committee meetings. That’s how he prepared for Question Period, directly with them. Was that something that you also did, or was it something where the government sent someone over to prepare you? What was the preparation from that perspective?
Mr. Gold: I did not attend those meetings, and the government never sent anybody over to prepare me. We were and, I believe still are, an autonomous office.
I was prepared every day by a member of my staff whose primary job was to try to anticipate what questions would be asked of me. We got some strong hints from where the Conservative senators’ questions would come from by watching Question Period because your questions were often consistent with those that were asked in the House. That’s not a criticism. It helped me understand what issues might be top of mind for you and your colleagues. It was also reading the newspaper and trying to understand what the issues were.
My office was regularly in touch with ministerial offices to ensure that we understood what the government positions were on issues that we anticipated might be asked. It was no secret — unlike my predecessor, who had a wealth of public policy and government experience behind him — that I did need to have my little — and it wasn’t so little — briefing book, but that book just contained all the things that we anticipated would be asked, whether on economic matters, public security or whatever the issues of the day were. That’s how I prepared.
Senator Batters: Supplemented with that, sometimes some senators would also provide you with what they were going to ask for their question, and then you would pull out your eight‑and-a-half-by-fourteen-inch page with your prepared answer for that. Does that also happen for ministerial Question Period? I happened to see Minister Tim Hodgson right before his appearance last week with his staff right behind the Senate chamber, and I heard his staffer say, “Oh, and here are the questions that we have been told will be asked.”
Mr. Gold: I don’t know. I know that some senators would give me a heads-up, sometimes with the actual questions and sometimes with the topic. Some of them even asked me not to reveal that they had done that. It was not something I ever asked for, but it was helpful, because there were many occasions where, if the question was technical, I wouldn’t know, whether I was a member of cabinet or not. I might know, because the answer might lie a little bit beneath that level. I, actually, have no idea with regard to the current practice, nor about whether individual senators would have communicated directly to ministers. I don’t know.
The Chair: Mr. Gold, I know that you have committed to an hour. I’m going to indulge you and ask you to be on the line for Senator Saint-Germain’s question, and Senator Wells (Alberta) has a question that might take you five minutes beyond.
Mr. Gold: With pleasure.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I will go quickly; both questions call for a short answer. They are about accountability.
With respect to choosing which ministers are called to appear before the Senate, I recall that when the leaders would meet, they would voice their opinions on which minister to call and the groups were then consulted.
Generally we would end up calling the ministers responsible for the bills that we were studying or were about to study, or the ministers responsible for portfolios that were in the news or involved a worrisome situation.
I don’t remember any major difference of opinion between representatives and leaders of each group, be it the official opposition or the three independent groups.
Do you have the same memory?
Mr. Gold: Yes and no. There was often a consensus because the issue in the news or the bill before us was really obvious and everyone was interested in it. That said, there were also some different opinions because, perhaps owing to an economic or political issue, the opposition wanted to focus on other things and wanted to put someone in the hot seat for some reason, or they believed there were other more interesting issues. You’re right, there often was a consensus, but that wasn’t always the case.
Senator Saint-Germain: The second part of my question on accountability is about flexibility. The Senate and all senators have a duty to follow up and ensure that a minister who would have appeared…. If we believe that there’s significant accountability or if the minister remembers something, the Senate must make sure that the minister appears.
After hearing from a minister, do you anticipate that the Senate might adopt a motion stating that the Senate could hear from the minister within six months about specific aspects? Would it be a good option, in addition to other existing options, such as calling a minister for an annual report, or having a minister called again by the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, which ensures that the laws passed by the government are implemented, or even any other Senate committee on its own initiative or in accordance with a mandate from the Senate?
In other words, wouldn’t that flexibility that can be adapted to each case, something we already have in our rules, be the most pragmatic option?
Mr. Gold: That’s interesting. Allow me to suggest that you address this issue with my successor to hear his views. Again, I will not give in to the temptation to play mother-in-law, given that I’m retired.
However, if I were still playing that role, I would want to have the opportunity to discuss it further with you before deciding if it’s a good idea or not. It’s up to you to decide.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: My question maybe risks getting too far in the weeds here but, while we have you here, we’d love your opinion.
During ministerial Question Period, should a senator sit or stand when asking a question? I’ve noticed sometimes ministers who may be new to the chamber haven’t read the seating plan and perhaps have a hard time seeing where the senator is in the chamber. Just your thoughts on maybe a question of etiquette.
Mr. Gold: Thank you. I don’t really know. Right now, everybody sits, which is consistent. I always found it a bit charming when one of the senators would wave and say, “I’m over here.” I think that’s probably sufficient, but again, those matters I leave for others to comment on.
The Chair: That brings us to the end of this witness round. The Honourable Mark Gold, our guest, who launched this study with the motion that we are studying, I want to thank you for being our witness but also for your years of service in the Senate. You left us a better place. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gold: Thank you, senators.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: If we could just continue for a bit, colleagues, after saying goodbye to Senator Gold, I have a brief update regarding our study on ministerial Question Period.
Following our discussions at the last meeting, we did extend an invitation to Minister MacKinnon, but he declined the invitation, saying it was his view that the government’s view would be expressed by the Government Representative, and we have, of course, the Government Representative as a witness at our next session.
Also, the deadline for our call for comments was last Friday, and the responses that we’ve received have been shared with you. You’ve also received documents from the Library of Parliament following requests made by the committee at the last meeting. First, an additional witness list has been proposed, and you have also received a list of all ministerial appearances in Senate Question Period, as well as some high-level statistics on the practice since it was implemented in the Forty-second Parliament.
Next week, our meeting will begin at 10:30 with the appearances of Senators Moreau and Carignan, so there will likely be no time to discuss further business after that. I therefore recommend that our meeting on November 4 be dedicated to studying next steps of this study and whether we want or need to hear more witnesses for that purpose. We can also give some preliminary instructions to our staff for the committee, recognizing that their deadline to report back is December 18 and that November moves faster than any other month in the calendar. If that is acceptable to everybody, I would propose that we move in that direction.
Senator Batters: We just received quite recently this list of additional proposed witnesses. A few of them were my suggestions, actually: the former Senators Joyal, Tkachuk and Cowan. There are some additional witnesses that the analysts, I believe, have come up with. I’m not sure why we would immediately go to discarding this when we’ve just received this and haven’t heard from any of these people yet. I think some of them could be quite helpful witnesses.
The Chair: I was hoping we could get to that on November 4, but if people want to open up the conversation now, is there a view that we need more witnesses? I would be interested in having that discussion.
Senator Downe: Chair, if you want to have the conversation now, I would be pleased to participate.
The Chair: Please.
Senator Downe: I looked at the list of witnesses. They are all outstanding people, but I’m not sure what any of them would have to say that would be new to any members of this committee. We’re living this experience now. Some of them haven’t been around for nine years. No doubt Senator Batters is right in that they were involved in the early days and have some expertise, but given the time frame, I’m not sure that the witnesses proposed, other than some of the procedural specialists, will add much, including from academia. Many of them would have to tune into Senate Question Period, I suspect, for the first time in their life to give us a view. My view of the procedural specialists is that some of them we will want to hear from, and others we should discard.
The Chair: Are there other views?
Senator Saint-Germain: I share Senator Downe’s view, but if we add additional witnesses, I would suggest we sit every week for two hours, because we have a deadline, and I believe it’s very important. We’re accountable to the whole Senate, and we need to respect the deadline.
Senator Yussuff: I want to concur with both Senator Downe’s and Senator Saint-Germain’s comments. I say that because I think the current evolution of Question Period really speaks to the challenge that we’re trying to deal with and what ultimately will be our recommendation going forward. I do respect colleagues who have been here in the past and the incredible knowledge and experience they bring, but I really want to be crystal clear about the contemporary period we’re looking at and the relevance to that, because it’s really irrelevant in the context of what has evolved in the last little while.
Senator Ringuette: I also want to concur. I look at the proposed list of witnesses, and they’re all great people that I respect. However, I think that we should conclude our witness list with Senator Moreau and Senator Carignan. I’m hoping there are new angles that they will bring to us next week, but I think we have to move on. There are so many other issues that we must deal with as a committee. Chair, I would not want us to add any other witness to this issue before we report.
Senator K. Wells: Given that there’s agreement that we need to meet the deadline, it’s important. Should we set an interim deadline for drafting so that there’s enough time to adequately review recommendations or a report that might be coming?
The Chair: My own view, colleagues, is that that is something we should discuss on November 4, after we’ve heard from two of the most important witnesses.
What I could suggest, in light of the conversations, is that we start next week at 9:30 and ask whether our clerk is available. The clerk was on the list as one of the procedural experts that could talk more about the decorum and the process of Question Period. If that is agreeable, we could do that, but I put that on the floor for comment.
Senator D. M. Wells: I think the committee would benefit from the wisdom of especially someone like former Senator Cowan that many of whom, maybe most of whom, on our committee haven’t heard from or don’t know or perhaps don’t know well. Looking at the landscape of time that he would bring to this — he’s not in the middle of it — I think he would bring an important perspective for our committee. Learning more is never a bad thing.
The Chair: Colleagues, I don’t have anybody else on the list. I do think that there’s a consensus that we should hear from procedural experts. There isn’t a consensus that we should extend our witness list beyond those that have appeared and are scheduled to appear. I would suggest, rather than being firm at this point, that we revert to November 4 to determine whether or not, in light of the witnesses that we hear at our next meeting, we’re satisfied that we have ascertained the best range of views that can help us focus on our report. I think that’s probably the best way of proceeding. If there’s agreement for that, I would suggest that’s how we proceed, 9:30 next week, with our clerk, and 10:30 with the two important witnesses, Senators Carignan and Moreau. On November 4, we can take stock of where we are with some conversation around what directive we could give to the drafters and proceed from that point of view, recognizing that December 18 is close and there are other issues before this committee as well.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: With that, I thank you for your participation, and I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)