THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 28, 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: Good morning, honourable senators. I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as viewers from 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 now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator D. M. Wells: My name is David Wells. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Busson: Welcome. My name is Bev Busson, from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Good morning. Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc, Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, a senator from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, a senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, a senator from Charlottetown.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. My suspicion is the guest today knows us all, perhaps better than we know ourselves.
Senators, today we are continuing our study on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister in the Rules. Joining us on the first panel, we’re very pleased to welcome Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments. Welcome, Ms. Anwar. The committee is delighted to have you before us. I would invite you to make your opening statement, followed by questions.
[Translation]
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators, and thank you for inviting me this morning.
[English]
I’ll preface today by saying that if I start talking about base running and bullpens and pitching, it’s because some of us were up rather late last night watching the Blue Jays game, but I will try to stay focused on the question before you today, which is about ministerial QP.
I have a few notes that are largely based on the last couple of hearings you had. I don’t have formal prepared remarks per se, and one of the reasons behind that is, with respect to Question Period, for us as table officers, there aren’t a lot of large procedural questions. In preparing for today, I was trying to think about the best way to approach this topic so I could be somewhat useful to you in your deliberations without a lot to offer you in terms of what decisions are before you.
I often talk about issues that come up in the Senate and questions/problems that come up in the Senate in terms of the three Ps. I’ve talked about this before with some you, perhaps, but I thought it would be a good starting point because I find the three “P”s help guide me in a lot of questions I get asked.
The first “P” is procedure: What do our Rules say, what do our sessional orders say, and what are our governance and guiding principles?
The second “P” is practice: What do we do by tradition, by habit, by the fact that we’ve done certain things a certain way until somebody says we should do it differently?
The third “P” is politics. I am a non-partisan procedural officer of the Senate. However, I certainly recognize that we work in a political environment and politics happens around us.
In breaking down some of the questions that you’ve been grappling with, I’ve found that putting everything in the context of the three “P”s really helps, so I’ll frame everything that I talk about in that context. I have some suggestions to offer you in terms of the first “P”, procedure; I have some to offer you in terms of practice, in terms of what we’ve done a certain way for a number of years or even decades; and then with politics, certainly there are elements where I will recognize that these are political decisions and decisions for senators to make and not so much for the administration.
Just to give you a bit of background, since the Forty‑second Parliament, the practice of holding ministerial QP was first initiated through the mechanism of a sessional order. I believe, Senator Harder, you were, at the time, the Government Representative in the Senate, and this began when you arrived.
The first version of the sessional order was straightforward. It allowed for ministers of the Crown who were not members of the Senate to attend QP and answer questions related to their ministerial responsibilities. That first sessional order didn’t include a whole lot else in terms of additional details. Other than allowing the minister to enter the chamber and answer questions, QP with a minister followed the rules and practices of Question Period at that time. A similar sessional order was adopted at the beginning of the Forty-third Parliament; and then, of course, during the COVID period, that practice was not used.
Since then, the orders have become successively more prescriptive in terms of adding logistical provisions, such as the frequency of Question Period, the necessity to consult on who to invite and the date. It includes a duty to provide notice to the chamber before a minister appears at QP.
At the beginning of the Forty-fourth Parliament, a variation of the sessional order included provisions to hold ministerial QP at a different time than what is provided for in the Rules. The notion of consultations was also included on who to invite and when. The government also had to inform the chamber in advance of the details of the ministerial QP. The time allotted was extended to 60 minutes, and time limits for questions and answers were imposed.
At the beginning of the current session, the Senate adopted a similar order, but this time it also included provisions related to delayed votes and suspensions for bells if they occur during a scheduled QP. I think the time was also extended to 64 minutes.
In terms of differences between amending the Rules and adopting a sessional order, I know that’s been the subject of some discussion before your committee. I note that, in the first meeting, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Tannas and Senator White provided different ways of looking at this question, ranging from proposing a permanent rule change for Question Period to suggestions for a “hybrid approach,” so a change to allow for ministerial QP in our Rules but leaving all of the logistical and procedural details, including things like the frequency, to a sessional order.
It’s helpful to look at the Rules. As I said, that’s the first “P”, procedure. That would be what could provide the framework for proceedings, and the Rules do provide the framework for proceedings in the chamber. They generally include normal processes for how work is structured and organized. Rule changes are infrequent and require amendments, obviously adopted by the chamber.
Whereas the sessional order would still be adopted by the Senate, it may set aside some of our normal Rules, and generally speaking, it’s for a period of time. It can be a finite period of time or until the end of the session. A sessional order expires at the end of a session. Within that, it can set parameters to guide how specific aspects of our normal Senate proceedings might be structured for that period.
Typically, the Rules provide those general principles, the procedures, and don’t get into the how-to. They don’t necessarily provide logistical aspects of how a specific provision should operate in practice. This is to avoid being too restrictive or prescriptive so that the chamber and/or committees — we also do this in committees — have a margin of flexibility to decide how to conduct business but still keeping within with the general principles as they are set out in the Rules.
[Translation]
Why are we talking about this question? In order to schedule witnesses appearing before committees, senators must keep in mind that for ministerial Question Period, we have to plan the participation of an external parliamentarian whose availability may not match Senate sitting hours and who cannot be compelled to appear. By retaining the practice in effect for the last ten years, the Senate is maintaining maximum flexibility. That will enable us to take into account any adjustments and new needs that might arise during a sitting week.
The Senate has several examples of sessional orders that have been used for years to guide its work.
Take the example of the order for automatic adjournment on Wednesdays. That has been in place for at least 18 years. The Rules have never been changed for Wednesdays.
For some time, the motion to change the start time of the Thursday sitting to 1:30 had not been adopted. During the pandemic, it was recommended that we sit at 2:00, as provided in the Rules, but it was ultimately decided, at the beginning of the session, to introduce a sessional order for the time to be a little earlier. This was a sessional order that had been in place for years before the pandemic.
The table clerks say that adopting a sessional order for some aspects of ministerial QP is a flexible and easy option to adapt for senators. However, if the decision is to incorporate that provision into the Rules, our opinion is that the amendment should be limited to a general statement that the ministerial QP will take place and, when it takes place, there could be another provision that after the usual consultations, the Senate should adopt a motion to specify all the logistical details, such as the date, time limits for each speaker, interactions with other elements of the Rules, the calendar, and so on, at the start of the session. Which other points in the Rules should be amended would also have to be determined.
To incorporate the provisions of this motion fully into the Rules, there would first have to be numerous consequential amendments made that might quickly become outdated in a few years. I know there were questions about precise wording. Let’s say that precise wording of an amendment itself could be drafted in light of directions from the senators.
[English]
We would need, first of all, instructions from the Senate on what you would want included, the level of detail, and if the procedure and logistical details are left to a sessional order, the changes to the Rules could be minimal, something like an overarching principle. I note that, in the Rules currently, we have about nine rules related to Question Period, and most of them are related to delayed answers and written questions. As it is right now, we have very few actual rules that guide us for Question Period. A lot of what we do is by tradition, convention and practice.
That’s the reason our suggestion is that if you wish to include a rule change to incorporate the appearance of a minister before Question Period, that you keep it high level, overarching and almost like an authority — not an authority to do so but a provision to set aside time in our schedule for this type of Question Period.
The other matter I wanted to discuss was the question of proportionality. I know there was some discussion on that. This has to do with the order of the list of questioners, and that’s never really been part of the sessional orders. The current sessional order has guidance on how much time a questioner has and how much time the minister has to respond, but we don’t include who asks which question and when and how many questions are given. Having a list certainly facilitates deliberations, but the list of questioners typically comes from a negotiated agreement between the leaders and not through a rule or not even a provision in the sessional order.
We don’t have a lot of examples of proportionality being formalized in our Rules. The one rule that we have is rule 12-1, which proposes that the membership of the Selection Committee be proportionate to the composition in the chamber. However, I would note that since that rule came into effect roughly eight or nine years ago, senators have instead chosen to adopt a sessional order to set the membership of Selection at the beginning of a session following political consultations.
Similarly, committee composition is set at the start of a new session, typically by a negotiated agreement, and often remains for the duration of a session. This is because it can be difficult to account for frequent changes in the standings and affiliations with rule changes.
In drafting a new rule to entrench Question Period with a minister, if that is the will of the committee and the Senate, it might be hard to envision how exactly we would be able to incorporate all of the potential scenarios that could impact proportionality throughout a session. I just wanted to perhaps signal that to you.
The Chair: I think that might be a good place to stop. I’ve let you go into extra innings, in keeping with last night, but I think we can anticipate questions that can clarify other matters.
Before we go to questions, I’d like to acknowledge that Senator Youance and Senator Batters have joined us. I do have a list. If you wish to participate in the questions, please signal that to the clerk.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Ms. Anwar, for your presentation.
My question is not a political question but it goes from the leaders to the table. It’s about the time it takes to ask questions and follow-ups. I know that’s a negotiated quantum by the leaders, but also, it’s the table that has to — not enforce it, but you’re part of the process whereby one of the table officers or table clerks stands up and gives notice. I think that’s a 10-second notice. Is that correct?
Ms. Anwar: That’s correct.
Senator D. M. Wells: When senators are at their seats, generally we’re looking at the minister. We’re not looking at the table or at the Speaker. It’s frustrating for me sometimes when I ask questions — and I don’t ask many questions in QP — to be just at the end of my question and get cut off by the Speaker. Some Speakers are flexible and let it go to finish the question, but I also recognize that some colleagues love a good preamble.
What do you think could change in not so much the agreement, because I understand the agreement, but what can we do to give senators the heads-up when they aren’t looking at the table but at the person to whom they’re asking the question? What can be done? What suggestions do you have to make that a smoother process so that questions nearing the end aren’t cut off?
Ms. Anwar: That’s tough. Our directive was to stand up 10 seconds before. I realize that where we’re situated versus where a senator’s seat may be, it may not be natural, especially if you’re turned and facing the minister.
We’ve discussed this with colleagues in different legislatures to see what’s being done. In certain cases, I believe on the House side, it’s the Speaker that rises, and they certainly have a culture of cutting people off a little more abruptly than maybe the Senate does. I believe the thought was that this would be a less intrusive way. It’s a signal largely to senators and to staff who need to know without necessarily disrupting, hopefully, the flow of conversation or back and forth that occurs. There are some legislatures that use clocks. We don’t really have a mechanism for that. That can also end up being a little bit of an intrusive thing. Particularly if the minister can see a clock, it changes the flow a little bit. Lights have been used. Cards have been used. I don’t know that we’ve really thought about it beyond the standing and the sitting, but we do realize also sometimes we become like part of the furniture and it’s easy to just sort of not notice what we’re doing. I don’t really have a good answer for you, senator.
Senator D. M. Wells: Especially because the preamble always ends with the question, if you don’t get the question, then you’ve lost your opportunity to have a reasonable exchange and learn from what the minister might say. Maybe something could be considered that’s more in the line of sight. Some people read questions. Some people look at the minister and ask the question.
Ms. Anwar: Generally speaking, there are pages on both sides of the room next to the Speaker and in the back. With the minister sitting there, we try not to be part of the TV shot, but that’s something we can certainly look at. It would be a little bit harder to coordinate the timing, but, perhaps, when we stand, we could ask the pages that are behind the minister to also to stand up, if that works.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I quite like senators’ question period with the clerk of the Senate. That should be put in the Rules.
Ms. Anwar: I would have to impose a rule of one minute per question and 30 seconds per answer.
Senator Saint-Germain: Because it is not yet in the Rules, my colleagues and I are completely free.
For the first part of my question, I would like you to remind us of something: Before 2015, when there were the government, the opposition and a very few unaffiliated senators, what was the time allocation for Question Period?
Ms. Anwar: It was 30 minutes, under the Rules, and the names were submitted just before the sitting, or not. Let’s say that before, the Speakers may have had a general rule that they followed, but it was certainly not prescribed in a sessional order. I don’t even know whether there was an agreement between the two sides, but generally—
Senator Saint-Germain: Was the time allocated for questions split among government, opposition and unaffiliated senators?
Ms. Anwar: I think it alternated. As a general rule, the Speakers allowed up to five minutes, but there were fewer people asking questions, and the questions were only for the government leader at the time and maybe committee chairs, although questions to committee chairs were pretty rare.
Senator Saint-Germain: Some people have suggested that ministers who are sponsors of a bill should participate systematically in ministerial QP in the chamber when we are considering it in principle at second reading. Some people have stated reservations and said that this might prevent the same minister from coming to the committee. Do you have an opinion on that subject?
Ms. Anwar: I think, and Senator Harder may have more information, that an effort was made to coordinate a minister’s appearance for Question Period, if the minister had a government bill that was about to be introduced in the Senate or that had been examined by the Senate.
In fact, it is hard to predict exactly when a bill is going to get to the Senate and also coordinate it all with a minister. So I think that practice is not followed systematically, but there are examples where ministers were invited for a bill, maybe in order to study the substance of a bill in Committee of the Whole, or, if that was impossible, to arrange for a minister who had a bill that the Senate had studied to come to the Senate. I think it is more a question of logistics to do it systematically.
Not all senators are able to be present for a committee meeting, because some have another committee meeting at the same time. So if a minister appears during the Question Period, that at least gives other senators who are not members of the committee the opportunity to ask questions.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have one last short question relating to the fourth “P”, protocol.
Senator Loffreda made a recommendation that senators rise when a minister comes to the Senate, for logistical reasons but also out of respect. Why is it that senators remain seated when a minister comes either to Committee of the Whole or for ministerial Question Period?
Ms. Anwar: For Committee of the Whole, it is standard practice to remain seated. I was trying to remember what was done before, in the chamber in Centre Block, and I had trouble recalling how ministerial QP proceeded at first. I realized that this was because it was not televised.
I don’t know whether I saw as many Question Periods in the former chamber. Initially, I think ministers were seated beside the government leader. It was practice then to rise. Ministers were relocated to put them at the desk used by the Usher of the Black Rod. Since then, I believe it has been a matter of practice: if a minister has to stand up and it is a one-hour Question Period, that means they will be standing for a long time. I also think that since the minister was seated where we are used to seeing witnesses in Committee of the Whole, it may tend to give the impression that we are in Committee of the Whole.
Senator Saint-Germain: That could be documented. Thank you.
Ms. Anwar: I don’t think there is a formal decision about it.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: If I can add to that, for the Forty‑second Parliament, the minister sat beside the Government Representative. In the Forty‑third Parliament, that was changed.
Senator Batters: Thank you for being here. To start, you indicated late last night that you were going to speak today about base running and what happens when you leave too many runners on base. A few people are very tired this morning because we stayed up very late watching that. Thank you for being here today and presenting on this.
First of all, I have a couple of points following up on some of these questions that just happened. I do recall that there were some times when we were at Centre Block when, for example, we had, I believe, Minister Wilson-Raybould at the time and Minister Philpott, who were testifying before the Senate about, I believe, the cannabis bill, and they did it as a Committee of the Whole. It was televised because of the importance of the topic. I remember actually standing up — because you have the choice to stand up or sit down — so I could be seen, given my short stature. There is that choice.
I also recall that there were times when we initially tried to have the minister attending in the middle, close to where the Usher of the Black Rod would sit, but there were many audio problems and things like that, so sometimes during almost the middle of the ministerial Question Period, they had to return to sit with the government leader, which was unfortunate because that wasn’t what was planned for that day. Maybe you can start out by talking about that and the history of where the minister, as a member of the House of Commons, sits in the Senate. What is the historical perspective on that?
Ms. Anwar: Well, historically, you’re right. Typically, a parliamentarian would sit on the benches with senators. When this type of ministerial QP first began in the Forty‑second Parliament, the invited minister would sit next to the government leader in the deputy leader’s seat.
There were a number of different reasons I’ve heard, and this is anecdotal. There was no formal decision other than to say that the minister is now going to be seated where the Black Rod normally sits, and that’s also normally where Committee of the Whole witnesses sit. Some of it, as I said, was a bit logistical in order to avoid situations where the minister is in the front bench answering a question for somebody that might be sitting behind them. It also gives, I guess, the minister the perspective of both sides of the chamber rather than just looking at one side.
Senator Batters: If I can stop you there, it is the historical perspective, isn’t it, that a member of the House of Commons, unless in a very unique situation, should not be on the floor of the Senate? They should be behind the bar.
Certainly at the time when this started, the desire from many of us was to respect that historical perspective and seat that person in a specified spot, not with senators, because they are not a senator, and there are very specific historical reasons. Somebody could even shout out, “Stranger in the House,” or something like that if it’s not a senator.
Ms. Anwar: Certainly, if a minister was not invited into the Senate, yes, their appropriate spot would be behind the bar. In this case, it would be someone invited by a motion in the Senate. Just like witnesses in a Committee of the Whole, they would be allowed to sit just in front of the bar, typically in the Black Rod’s seat. It’s something that has evolved over time. It’s hard to compare it to before because we didn’t really have ministers that appeared for Question Period.
Senator Batters: I was slightly late because I think my cab driver might also have been watching that game late last night, and I’m not sure if you mentioned why this ministerial Question Period first started in late 2015, early 2016. You weren’t in your current role, but you certainly had an important role in the Senate. I believe you were probably at the table for quite some time. What is your point of view as to why this ministerial Question Period started at that point?
Ms. Anwar: I think the best person to answer that question is probably Senator Harder. I actually wasn’t a table officer at the time. Initially, it was because — you’re right. Coming out of the 2015 election, which I believe was in October 2015, Parliament resumed in early December, and without a government leader, we had Senate Liberals, Conservative senators and a handful of independents. I believe, Senator Harder, you were appointed in March. By our Rules, our questions to — you’re reminding me now. I forgot that this was a 10-year-ago thing.
The Chair: We have Senator Carignan in the next hour.
Ms. Anwar: He would have been part of those discussions, but you’re right, we didn’t have a government leader from December 2015 until March 2016, so asking questions of committee chairs would have probably shortened it greatly. This was an innovation that was brought in to bring government representation to the Senate so senators could fulfill their role of oversight of government.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: If I could just add for information, the appearance by Ministers Wilson-Raybould and Philpott was in Committee of the Whole for a specific piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being with us today. My first question is quite general. The people we have heard from so far have highlighted the value this ministerial Question Period has added and the challenges that might be encountered. At the last sitting, former senator Gold was with us.
I would like to ask you the same question about your team and your role: Does this ministerial QP present any issues or challenges? What is your experience on this subject?
Ms. Anwar: It is mainly logistical issues for us. We have to know who the minister will be and when the Question Period will take place. At present, the time is not set. For example, the Senate may decide to have a Question Period on a Thursday; we had one at 4:00 recently. It is important for us to know these details in order to prepare the chamber.
As was said, one of the questions raised is whether it is better to do it on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. It depends on senators’ preference. It should be pointed out, however, that on Tuesdays, if a Question Period is held later in the afternoon, it could delay or prevent committees from meeting, depending on what time it is held. On Wednesdays, because sittings are fairly short — ordinarily two hours — if there is a one-hour Question Period, it takes up half the time. At present, that doesn’t cause problems, but during busy periods, it might be difficult. Thursdays do not present a lot of problems, when there is a normal schedule or agenda.
Apart from that, it is mainly a matter, for us, of knowing a bit in advance, so we can prepare, but we can still do some things at the last minute.
Senator Petitclerc: My other question may be a bit harder. If we start from a certain premise, in which we feel some support for this ministerial Question Period, and so we would like this practice to continue over time, regardless of what changes might occur, does a change in the Rules — and we agree that there would be general principles alongside the change — offer greater security than a sessional order?
Ms. Anwar: I don’t know whether it offers greater security. It means that at the start of a new session, whether or not there was to be a ministerial Question Period would not be an issue, because it would already be in the Rules. As I explained, we have had a number of motions or sessional orders for years. It is up to us, the table clerks, to discuss these issues with the leaders at the start of a new session. That is essentially how it is, but there is nothing to prevent the Senate from adopting a motion.
For example, if the Rules are amended to incorporate ministerial QP, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from adopting a motion at the start of a new session to delete that amendment. The decision is always up to senators. A new provision in the Rules makes it permanent in the Rules, which means that senators have to decide whether or not to continue down that path, instead of what we do now, where we make the proactive decision to present a motion.
Senator Petitclerc: So we might think that if it is in the Rules, it would not be an issue every time the Senate returns, unless it is deleted.
Ms. Anwar: Yes, but there are many examples of things in the Rules that are disregarded at the start of a new session. The only thing is permanence. As I said, it will stay there; if it is a general rule, it will probably be a case in which the Senate “may” have a ministerial Question Period, not necessarily that it “shall” have a ministerial Question Period.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: First, I have a few comments. We have to distinguish between an MP being at the bar of the Senate and a minister, which is the de facto government representative cabinet member being invited to the Senate. From my perspective, these are two different issues. Having a permanent rule sets the standards that should be in place, and a sessional motion either removes that rule or further defines it. That’s from my perspective, and thank you for bowing your head.
Going back to procedure, from my perspective, if we have Question Period with the Government Representative or a minister, it should be the same standard — i.e., that senators stand to ask the question, and the minister or the Government Representative stands to answer the question, which is completely different from a sitting of a Committee of the Whole where everyone is sitting. From your perspective, are my comments correct in practice and in procedure?
Ms. Anwar: I think it’s more a question of order and decorum and what senators want that particular part of the sitting to look like. There are certainly advantages in terms of making the person who is speaking and who has the floor easier to identify, whether it’s for our TV directors, the microphone operators or for the minister, who may not necessarily know from that end of the chamber who is speaking at the other end. There’s that type of factor. It’s hard for me to answer that question as to whether it’s good or bad. I see pros and cons for both, and, really, it is largely a decision of senators.
The one thing I would say is it is the type of thing that I think you don’t want to entrench in your Rules. It’s something that can be decided with agreements. That’s how the current standard was established. There’s nothing in the sessional order that says senators should sit or ministers should sit. This is something that has evolved over time.
Senator Ringuette: My second question is in regard to proportionality. We have a different composition of the Senate now than we had in 2015. From your perspective, should we include the principle of proportionality, or should we leave it to a sessional motion? Because right now, I’m not certain who decides how many questions per group are allowed, whether it’s with the 30-minute Question Period or the 60 minutes with a minister. Could you clarify this?
Ms. Anwar: My understanding is that that is determined through negotiations with the leaders. Senator Saint-Germain — and Senator White also — you’re probably involved in those discussions more than I am. We receive a list of names, so we go by the list. Within those negotiations, even though there is, I guess, the guidelines for any particular Question Period, day to day there is always the opportunity for some deviation. Again, that can be decided by leaders. Sometimes they say, “So-and-so is the sponsor of the bill; can we have them go first?” There are certain things that I think every party and group tries to establish in keeping that list.
My experience with the proportionality issue is more in committee, and it’s a question that certainly has come up there as well with respect to committee seats. Because the numbers are very close, with the exception of the one larger group, it can be very difficult if the numbers are 18, 17 or 14, and then it shifts, and then it shifts, and then it shifts. We have a spreadsheet that helps us do the math, but I can’t split a senator into 0.25, so we have to sometimes make decisions that seem practical without disrupting proceedings too much. Unless there was to be a substantial shift in proportionality, that seems to be the status quo that we’ve used since 2015.
[Translation]
Senator Surette: My question is about the difference between a sessional order and codification in the Rules.
You seem to prefer sessional orders because of their flexibility and you said that if something is codified in the Rules, it would be just a “statement” — I think that is the word you used.
If something is codified, can you tell us whether it would look like the details that are currently set out in the sessional order, or would it be something shorter? If I understand correctly, it can be something shorter. Can you give us an idea of the length of the statement and the kind of details that would be given in the Rules?
Ms. Anwar: What we suggest you do, if you are thinking of codifying something in the Rules, is have a rule that is relatively permissive and not too prescriptive. So I imagine it would be short. It would simply be a clarification stating that the Senate will invite a minister or hold a ministerial Question Period from time to time. That will let you have a sessional order alongside it, if that is what you want. Then it will allow the Senate to incorporate changes from session to session that reflect the composition of the chamber and the issues of the day.
If you put it in the Rules themselves, for example, I think it now says that there will be a ministerial Question Period every two weeks. However, if you put it in the Rules, it means that every time you want to have a second Question Period, as is being done right now in the absence of Senator Moreau, you would need to have another motion that would say something like “notwithstanding rule X, another Question Period will be held.”
It is a matter of flexibility. At present, as I said, there are only four things in the Rules dealing with Question Period, but there are all sorts of practices already in place; some are in writing and a number are not. That works reasonably well, because no one has really wanted to change things since I have been in the Senate.
Senator Surette: Thank you for your answer. In your remarks, you said that if there were an amendment to the Rules, and I quote, “some things will quickly become outdated, in a few years.”
Ms. Anwar: “Might.”
Senator Surette: “Might.” Can you give us some examples?
Ms. Anwar: We are talking about proportionality; we can’t predict what the proportions of the different parties or groups will be in even a few months. We have already seen a number of changes since 2015.
I have to be honest: in 2015, I would never have thought that the Senate would have five different parties or groups, and now there are five. That could increase or decrease. If we start a session with the proportions set out in the Rules and the groupings change…
It is being suggested because we have gone through several changes; the Rules always lagged behind the changes happening and amendments always had to be made.
Senator Surette: It depends on what is in the Rules; it depends on how many details are in the Rules.
Ms. Anwar: Yes, but if it is permissive, to simply specify that there will be a ministerial Question Period and the Senate shall determine the other details by way of a sessional order, that will allow the Senate to continue this practice, but not necessarily set down all the aspects of how it will be held.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Thank you for being here after staying up last night. I finally got fed up and went to sleep.
Ms. Anwar: I can imagine.
Senator Yussuff: This place is evolving, more so since 2015, in very interesting ways, to be polite. We don’t know what the evolution will look like. Time will tell. Ministerial Question Period is relatively new, because for most of Senate history, that was not the tradition. Just anecdotally, talking to others and observing when ministers come, from my perspective, it looks to me like people kind of like what it’s evolving to be. Separate from that, there’s a public relations aspect to this and how the public perceives this institution, given its challenges historically to have relevance. I see it as a positive thing, and I’m not asking you to comment on that.
In the context of going forward, I would subscribe to the view that a rule change for Question Period is necessary. The details of it, yes, we should leave for circumstance to sort out, but I don’t see it being a bad thing. A future chamber or a future evolution may go back to the way it was when there was no Question Period here.
From the perspective of what you and your staff have to do, does it really present any significant challenge in how you do your work?
Ms. Anwar: I don’t think so. Our advice is always to try and avoid how many motions we have to adopt at the start of the session that start with, “Notwithstanding rule XXY, we’ll do things completely different than what our Rules say here.” That’s what is guiding us here.
We don’t think it’s necessary to entrench it in the Rules from a procedural standpoint. I’m sticking just to the first “P” and maybe a little bit to the second “P.” Politically, there might be some advantages for the Senate. Certainly, you’re right, the ministerial QP has brought visibility to Question Period that I don’t think existed before. There’s an interest from the media and also from the government in what the Senate is doing. It’s also an opportunity for senators to be able to ask questions directly to ministers, which many may not get to do on a regular basis. Certain committees see ministers more often than others, and certain committees don’t deal with legislation so they may not get that opportunity.
For us, we’re just dealing with that first “P,” which is procedural. Like I said, we don’t want senators to adopt rules that then become obsolete the second they’re adopted. That can happen if the motion is too prescriptive in saying it must be every third Thursday of the month, or it must be with this many minutes. Right now, there’s a lot of flexibility for the Senate to adjust according to the times.
I know somebody asked about what to do about cancellations. We looked, and we’ve only had one time where a Question Period had to be cancelled due to a minister who was suddenly not available. In general, it allows us to bend a little bit to the availability of the minister. We’ve seen a transition even with that, because I think at the beginning, people were not sure what this Question Period would look like, even from the side of ministers. Now, it seems there’s a lot more openness to coming before the Senate.
For us, again, it’s a question of knowing in advance, having some direction from senators about how they want Question Period to function, and then for us to provide you with the procedural tools and mechanisms, if you need them. A lot of this can happen through just consultations and discussions, such as the order of questions and how the number of questions is determined. That is largely done by negotiation.
Senator Yussuff: For those of us who think this is a good evolution of the Senate, sessional orders require the last “P” you talked about, the politics of negotiating and agreeing. It would avoid — depending on the circumstance of an election — what folks may want, and it depends how you perceive the outcome. “This is a pain in the neck. I don’t want to be involved in it. It constrains the government and drags this minister here.” There’s always that avenue of challenges that you face with a sessional order, whereas if you make a rule change, taking into consideration what you’ve said, it makes it easier for us to say that this is a constant requirement that ministers will come here, and we’ll work out the details of how they get here, how much time they have and when that happens.
Ms. Anwar: I think we can adapt either way. We have a lot of other sessional orders that — as I said, with the Wednesday motion, there were many opportunities to change the Rules, and ultimately, the decision was that we’ll keep going as we are. It’s been 20 years with that particular motion. With this Question Period, it’s been 10 years now, so it’s almost too late to call it a new thing.
Senator Downe: Obviously we’re trying to adjust to a problem that arose with the changes in the Senate. Prior to the changes in 2015, the government leader in the Senate was a minister who attended cabinet meetings and cabinet committees. Indeed, at cabinet meetings, the Senate leader would be called upon to give a report on activities in the Senate, what was going on, so the non-cabinet ministers who weren’t in the Senate, which was everyone else, would understand what was happening in the Senate. In the absence of that access and in the absence of that two-way dialogue, we’re trying to square the circle, and what we’ve come up with is these ministerial appearances.
I have the view — I think you share it, given your comments — that a sessional order works on the premise that the government will agree to send people, and then we proceed. If the government changes — and I don’t necessarily mean a change in parties forming the government — the government could decide tomorrow, “We don’t see that as a useful exercise and we’re not going to send ministers to the Senate anymore. We’re not even going to send ministers to Senate committees.” They’ve already downgraded the Senate by not having the Senate leader in cabinet. There could be a continuation of that. That would give us flexibility, if we had agreement from the government, to continue.
If we put it in the Rules, it would be somewhat embarrassing if, when we phone up, nobody answers the phone; they totally ignore it. It seems to me that downgrades the Senate, which I think goes to the root of your basic recommendation that it be a sessional order. Is that correct?
Ms. Anwar: I would say aspects of your question are probably capital “P,” bold, underlined, politics, so I don’t really have an answer for you on that. Certainly, again, having it in the Rules would require, in a change-in-government situation, for that question to be dealt with, either to set aside the rule or change the rule, as opposed to a sessional order which would simply expire and the Senate could decide whether it’s going to introduce a new sessional order. There’s that element.
With respect to whether it gives more or less access to cabinet ministers or cabinet decisions, again, that’s ultimately for senators to assess if they feel that the new system is giving them more access because they’re speaking to more cabinet ministers as opposed to just one. I think in my time, there was a brief period where we had two ministers present.
The Chair: For clarity, the last government leader in the Senate who was a minister was Marjory LeBreton. Senator Carignan was, like me, a Privy Councillor, but not a member of cabinet.
Ms. Anwar: I think we had a period where Senator LeBreton was a minister, but we also had Senator Fortier, who was also in cabinet. There was a brief period of two.
Senator K. Wells: Following up on Senator Yussuff’s comments about public interest and public perception, I’m wondering if you know or if you could find out for us, where is the viewer interest online? Are we getting more people tuning in to ministerial Question Period in the Senate than other parts of the Senate? It would just be interesting to know, as we continue to deliberate this, where the public interest is greatest.
Ms. Anwar: I don’t have stats or anything like that for you, but I can certainly inquire. I don’t know if we can necessarily tell you that there’s more visibility on a television platform, but we can probably get some idea about how many clicks there are on the website. I’m not sure if it can tell us in that period, but I’ll certainly inquire and let you know.
We certainly see things on Twitter and questions and media articles referring to appearances by ministers and what they’ve said. They bring with them a bit of a media entourage, no doubt about that.
The Chair: Senator Downe, you had a quick follow-up. You look like you know the answer.
Senator Downe: No, I’d just like to know what the numbers are, if our clerk could find out. Is anybody actually watching this? I don’t think we’re famous among the shut-ins. My sense is that the numbers are appalling, and CPAC every now and then threatens to cut off our committees because nobody is watching, so I’d like to know what the numbers are.
The Chair: Before I thank our witness, I’d like to ask for one piece of information to be tabled.
You recall that this is ministerial Question Period, and there was a case recently where we had a Secretary of State. My information is that that Secretary of State, in her order-in-council, actually is a minister. I think it would be helpful for the Senate to know which Secretaries of State are ministers in the order-in-council and which not. Ministerial Question Period is what we want to preserve — in other words, not having Secretaries of State who are not ministers answer for their area of delegated responsibility. If you could provide that, I think that would be helpful.
Ms. Anwar: My understanding is not all Secretaries of State are ministers, but some are. We can find out.
The Chair: Yes. If we had that list, it would be helpful for this committee but probably also for senators more generally.
With that, I want to thank Ms. Anwar for her testimony. It’s much appreciated. You’ve helped us deal with the issue that is before this committee in a helpful way. Thank you very much.
Ms. Anwar: I’ll just add, pending the decision of this committee and pending the decision of the Senate, our team is available to offer further guidance and assistance as you narrow down the parameters of what you’re looking for.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, we are pleased to have with us the Honourable Senator Claude Carignan, P.C., former leader of the opposition in the Senate and former leader of the government in the Senate. Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. We invite you to make your preliminary remarks, after which we will move on to questions from committee members.
Hon. Claude Carignan: Thank you for inviting me and for being accommodating on the schedule for presentations. My introduction will last about seven or eight minutes. I do want to note the presence of Senator Cowan, however. It is a coincidence that Senator Cowan is here today, so I have taken the liberty of asking him to be here for the presentation. Because Senator Cowan was the opposition leader when I was the government leader, if I make mistakes or there are things he does not agree with, he will be able to speak.
Thank you for being here, Senator Cowan.
I think it is important to recall that it is nothing new for ministers other than the Leader of the Government to be asked questions in the Senate. For 40 years, up to when Senator Michael Fortier departed, senators were able to question the government, not only through the government leader, but also through their colleagues who are members of cabinet. In fact, from the earliest days of the Senate, it was common for ministers to be appointed from the Senate. Former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie offered a good explanation of this in his March 2016 report on the arbitration of certain senators’ expenses in response to the Auditor General’s report.
I quote:
Senators also play a significant role in questioning, criticizing and holding to account the Government. In the traditional language of Sir Walter Bagehot, it falls to the Houses of Parliament to inform “the Nation of defects in the administration” and even of teaching the nation — “altering it for the better…teaching the Nation what it does not know.”
He went on to say:
While the task of holding the government to account is primarily located in the House of Commons, it also extends to the Senate as a participant in Parliament’s broader role as “The Grand Inquest of the Nation.”
This is perfectly normal. Questioning the government on its policies and on the conduct of the administration is fundamental to the role of a senator. However, we have to be able to choose the ministers we want to invite for Question Period in the Senate. The contemporaneous hot topics of the day offer ample justification for this requirement.
My purpose in 2015 when I proposed that a ministerial Question Period be established was therefore to be able to continue the Senate’s work of questioning the government.
After Justin Trudeau expelled the Liberal senators from the national caucus on January 29, 2014, those senators nonetheless continued to sit under the Liberal label. When Mr. Trudeau was elected as prime minister in the fall of 2015, he therefore could not count on senators to form the government caucus. For several weeks, the government was unable to decide how it would deal with the Senate. Would it appoint a government leader? Who would sponsor government bills?
At the time, after the election, I had become opposition leader, but with no counterpart for the government. The Conservative and Liberal senators then decided to take matters in hand and make arrangements so the Senate could function. It was against this backdrop that I introduced a motion to invite ministers to Question Period in the Senate. Not knowing whether or when we would have a government leader, I believed that the Senate’s role as “Grand Inquest of the Nation” had to be preserved. Senators had to have a way of questioning the government. The motion was adopted.
Minister LeBlanc collaborated fully with Senator Cowan, the Liberal leader, and myself. On February 24, 2016, when he appeared before the Rules committee, Mr. LeBlanc stated:
Answering for the government, we would propose that sending elected ministers is a formula that we find interesting and certainly positive. Is there a hybrid version where there can be an opportunity to do both? We would be open to that.
So it was the Conservative caucus that instituted ministerial Question Period, and the government agreed to participate.
With the approach of the tenth anniversary of the introduction of this new practice of questioning ministers, what lessons can we learn from this? I believe two things have changed, not for the best.
For one thing, at the start, it was the opposition that chose the minister, or rather submitted a short list of ministers we wanted to question to the government. Senator Cowan’s office was consulted by my office and we gave the list to Mr. LeBlanc’s office, and then to Senator Harder’s office. But that is not how things are done today.
The second thing that has changed is the timing of ministerial Question Period. Often, with or without consultation, the government schedules Question Period for Thursday at 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon. Knowing full well that our colleagues from the West or the Atlantic have to leave early, the government is preventing a large number of senators from participating.
In addition, the Leader of the Government too often insists on holding Question Period with a junior minister in December or June, when time is running out for bills to be passed before the end of the session.
The timing of Question Period should also be something that the opposition is consulted on.
I will conclude with a few points that you should take into consideration in your deliberations. First, I don’t think the Rules of the Senate should be amended. We have been going along for almost ten years without making changes like this. What would doing that add? The Rules are perfectly adequate in their present form. They allow for doing what we have been doing for ten years, and we can use the sessional motion vehicle to clarify how ministerial Question Period is to work.
Why would we need to put the length of time for questions and answers in the Rules? In my opinion, changes to how ministerial Question Period works should come mainly from the Leader of the Government, who must consult the groups, particularly the opposition, and abide strictly by their suggestions. The government leader must not, in any case, require that a minister appear, let alone a person who is not a member of cabinet.
The government leader must also avoid scheduling ministerial Question Period for after 2:30 on Thursday afternoon. It is disrespectful to our colleagues from distant parts and it reduces the coverage of Question Period.
In addition, I would point out that it is not up to the government leader to change the time when Question Period will be held. It should be in the Rules and be a set time, barring exceptional circumstances, in which case it would be decided by the chamber at the request of the leader.
In conclusion, I believe that the present text of the Rules is perfectly adequate, and the committee should instead send the ball back to the Leader of the Government. He is the one responsible for improving the process. We can use a sessional order to negotiate and clarify Question Period, to invite the minister the Senate sees fit to invite, based on the situation at the time or the political climate of the day.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carignan. We will begin the questions.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Carignan, for being here today.
When you were government leader in the Senate, it was a similar situation to now in that you were sworn in as Privy Councillor and also attended cabinet committees but were not a member, strictly speaking, of cabinet, I believe. I’m just wondering, with that context, can you please elaborate on the relationship and interaction that you had as Leader of the Government in the Senate with the Prime Minister and with the Cabinet?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you for the question. In fact, I didn’t have the title of minister, but I had all the other elements, including the obligations. We even amended the Rules because, initially, they provided only for ministers; we added the Leader of the Government. That was an adaptation. Other than that, I sat on two cabinet subcommittees: the Committee on Priorities and the Committee on Communications. I was in constant contact with the Prime Minister’s Office. I saw the prime minister several times a week. There was my equivalent in the House of Commons, the Leader of the Government in the House, and there was me in the Senate. Every Monday afternoon, we met with the prime minister and the chiefs of staff to organize the week in Parliament, in both the Senate and the House of Commons.
In addition, I participated in all preparation periods for Question Period. Every day, the ministers who might be answering questions met with the prime minister at noon to prepare for question period in the House of Commons. Obviously, that was preparation for my own Question Period for the Senate. Given that I was government leader, it was very important that I communicate the government’s message and answer on behalf of the government. There could be no discrepancy between what a minister said in the House of Commons and what I said here in the Senate. The message had to be coordinated and identical, because I was speaking on behalf of the government.
On Wednesday, of course, I was in caucus, sitting beside the prime minister throughout the caucus meeting. We were able to converse. Obviously, I had the pulse of cabinet and the government, and this put me in a position where I was able to answer questions.
[English]
Senator Batters: Which were the two cabinet subcommittees that you sat on? What was your role in doing that? Like you said, yes, every week you attended national Conservative caucus, which was the government caucus at the time, and provided the Senate report there and answered questions, as needed, from our caucus colleagues there. Can you provide a bit more information on those parts?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: In committee, I was like any minister. I could express my views about everything. I participated in the presentations made by all of the ministers. Essentially, I wore the hat of a senator who could speak from time to time about issues that were of interest to the Senate, but I could express my views even about policy. I could ask ministers questions about the presentations. It was full participation on the same footing as the ministers.
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Carignan, when I was sworn in, you were the Leader of the Opposition. I very clearly recall that while you engaged in strong debate on substance, you exhibited great politeness and decorum. That is one of my good memories of my first weeks in the Senate.
You pointed out, and I agree with you, that it is the job of the Senate to question the government. Today, the government consists of five people who are the government’s representatives. There is a caucus affiliated with the opposition in the House of Commons. There is also your caucus of 14 or 15 senators and there are three independent groups. Approximately 80% of senators are independent, including two senators who are genuinely unaffiliated.
I think we have to acknowledge that the role of standing up to the government and holding it accountable belongs to the opposition caucus, obviously, but also to a majority of independent senators. Do you think we should do more, whether by a rule or a sessional order, which is not my angle right now, to ensure a better balance in the time given not only to the opposition, but also to the other senators who have questions for the government? The questions are not necessarily planted or friendly; they may be serious questions to hold the government accountable.
Senator Carignan: All senators should have an opportunity to ask questions. That being said, the opposition has a specific role in a Westminster-style parliament: to question the government. We have to strike a balance between the opposition’s opportunity to play its role, by having a certain order of questions, and all senators’ opportunity to participate in debate and question the government. Some senators were appointed for their expertise. You are the former Quebec ombudsperson and you played that role. In fact, you remind me that in my speech, I pointed out that you were the obvious person because of your role as ombudsperson. That is probably the best preparation for being a senator. I think that is what I said.
We have to give all senators an opportunity to make their points and ask questions, but not necessarily diminish the constitutional role of the Official Opposition.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a quick question. I am not trying to trap you, but I am trying to find a balance. You said that when you were government leader, your role was to answer on behalf of the government and to promote and defend the government’s position.
During the time when the Senate was a bicameral chamber, divided between government and opposition with very few unaffiliated senators, did this disproportion not cause a problem?
The Senate is an assembly that must hold the government to account, but when the government is represented by as many senators as the opposition, is there not a problem of less accountability being demanded of the government?
Senator Carignan: I think it has always worked a bit like that, in the sense that I don’t think less is being demanded.
I think the system of the senators being appointed by the government means that when a government is elected, there are a bit more difficulties. This government appointed its senators eight or ten or 12 years ago, so it has to deal with a chamber where the forces of opposition and pressure are brought to bear, to ensure that laws reflect regional priorities but not to wipe the slate completely clean in relation to what has gone before.
A change resulting from an election does not mean a complete change of direction.
The government elements left in the Senate Chamber after a defeat tempers that effect somewhat. After a second election, the government ordinarily has more elbow room, because it has appointed more senators.
The fact that Prime Minister Harper left 20 seats vacant somewhat defeated that balance.
This kind of thing leads to negotiations between the two chambers being conducted differently. For us, they were done another way. Participating in caucus, and my participation in cabinet, meant that I was able to propose amendments even before they were introduced here.
There was still some effectiveness, but isn’t shown in the numbers. So you can’t count the amendments or have the same effectiveness.
[English]
Senator Busson: Thanks for being here, senator.
I listened intently to your presentation. You spoke about the fact that it was the opposition and, indeed, under your support that ministers of the Crown came to be invited to Question Period. Given your long and storied experience and your roles in the past, could you describe to us what might be the ideal scenario for selecting the timing and the attendance and which ministers might appear before the Senate?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Given that there is also a desire to attract attention, I think you have to find a period when there will be useful media coverage. Not a weekend or a Thursday at 4:30, when it is harder to get coverage of Question Period and have senators able to participate fully, since some have to leave Ottawa because of flight times. I think Tuesday would be more appropriate, since it is at the start of the week.
I think it should be up to the Senate, not the government representative, to decide which minister to invite, since we are the ones who are to ask questions about hot topics that affect the Senate. It is not up to the Leader of the Government to send us junior ministers so they can practise participating in Question Periods, after consulting — not even the prime minister, but the House leader, from what I understand.
The decision should be up to the Senate, whether by discussion between the leaders or by vote or otherwise, but the Senate has to be the one that expresses its wish to hear minister X or minister Y.
[English]
Senator Busson: As a follow-up, of course, we’re talking about whether or not this would be a rule or a sessional order. Either way, would you recommend once a week or once every two weeks? What do you think would be the correct number?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Once every two weeks would provide a degree of balance. The government leader or the government representative would still have to be able to answer and have the necessary authority for their answers to be binding on the government.
Based on what I hear from the last government representatives, their preparation and their ties to the government or cabinet are completely different from what I had. Their answers — they have to be binding on the government.
Senator Gold explained to me how he prepared for Question Period; I was almost embarrassed for him, in the sense that it was not really the same level of preparation as I had.
If the government leader or the government representative does not have the authority for their answers to be binding on the government and to provide answers other than what they find in the newspapers, there would then have to be more ministerial periods, since we have to play our role.
Senator Ringuette: When they say that Question Period should not be held on Thursday at 4:00, because some senators have to get away, I don’t think that Canadian taxpayers and citizens agree with those comments, given that we call ourselves parliamentarians, just like the people in the House of Commons who sit five days a week.
Obviously they have the benefits of flexibility, with virtual sittings; we can talk about that again another time.
In your comments, you said two things that are pretty extreme, in my opinion. You said that ministerial Question Period should not be incorporated into the Rules and you said that a set time for Question Period should be incorporated into the Rules. Is there no happy medium there?
Senator Carignan: Incorporated into the Rules or in a sessional order is for the timing of Question Period; I am not standing on principle for it to be in one place or the other.
What I mean is that they should be fixed and foreseeable so that Canadians who want to watch it or journalists who want to follow it know that Tuesday at 2:30 is Question Period, and not that it will be held on different days or at different times so that people lose the thread because of the unpredictability of Question Period.
Regarding your comment, I completely agree with you. But there is theory and there is practice, and practice means that if people want to catch a flight to get home for the weekend, sometimes they have to leave at the end of the day on Thursday.
We don’t have that concern ourselves, because we use our vehicles, but from a practical perspective, and I am not defending it, it is just the reality, we have to adapt to that reality.
Senator Ringuette: Concerning the time for Question Period to be held and your wish, which I believe is the wish of all senators, for there to be greater visibility for Question Period in the Senate, and given that question period in the House of Commons is from 2:15 to 3:00, should we ask ourselves whether questions in the Senate should start at 3:00?
Senator Carignan: You raise a good point.
Senator Ringuette: What is your opinion?
Senator Carignan: Certainly if I want the minister of the day, he may be fully occupied in the other place, because they want him too. That is a very good point, to put it after question period, especially if it is the minister of the day we are having: he will have warmed up, as he needs to on the other side before coming here, so he should be ready.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being here today, Senator Carignan. Thanks too for this good idea you had almost ten years ago, this ministerial Question Period. A decade later, we are hearing, here and in the House, that everyone likes it. This ministerial Question Period is a valuable addition.
I need to understand your position. People say it was a good idea and want it to keep going. You seem to be saying that a sessional order is sufficient and we don’t need to put it in the Rules. If a government decides someday that it is no longer worthwhile to send ministers, but if it is in the Rules, even generally and not too prescriptively, do you not agree that it would up the pressure a bit?
Senator Carignan: I am going to share your thanks with Senator Cowan, because we did this together, along with the whole Senate team at the time.
We might think that this ups the pressure a bit. We can’t force a minister to testify or summon a minister to appear. The sessional order is negotiated. There will have been discussions with the people in the other place to see how things are working with this new government and to see whether we are comfortable with how it is working. The fact that it is in a sessional order allows a bit more flexibility to adapt to the norms of the day, as we did ten years ago. We adapted to the new situation.
I think that in 2015, after the election, the Trudeau government didn’t really know what to do with the Senate and with representation. They built the plane while they were flying it. So the sessional order allowed for that flexibility. That is the advantage I see in it. Are there other disadvantages? Maybe. On balance, however, I prefer to have the option of adapting to a changing situation while preserving the importance of Question Period and of choosing the minister who is to testify before the Senate.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Thank you for being here and sharing your perspective for some of us who weren’t here then. It’s good to learn the evolution of Question Period in the Senate.
I have a particular question about the difference between ministerial Question Period and Committee of the Whole. Recently we dealt with Bill C-5 in Committee of the Whole, and ministers came, including witnesses. In my brief observation of that moment, I thought the Senate as a whole and senators in general learned far more about what this bill was about, and potential challenges in front of the government, but also opportunities for the country as we face many different things that the bill was proposing. Can you distinguish between these two elements and the usefulness of them in the context of Question Period?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
In Committee of the Whole, when a minister comes, it is usually to defend a bill and answer questions about the ins and outs of that bill. Question Period is for talking about the minister’s entire mandate and all activity relating to their department. It is much broader. It allows for questions to be asked with more latitude than when the minister comes to talk only about their bill. In Committee of the Whole, they defend their bill. In Question Period, they defend their government, their activities, their mandate, and the entire method of delivering on their mandate. I think that for holding a government responsible and holding it to account, question period in the House is much more serious and useful in that regard.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: On the broader question around Question Period, those who are not part of the opposition in the chamber sometimes also have some questions that hold the government to account. The tone may be different and the approach may be different, but generally, all senators often have questions for a minister that are very relevant to the file, as we saw last week when the Minister of Veterans Affairs was here. There were some tough questions about a follow-up and the lack of commitment on the part of the government to do some of the things that the Senate committee had spent a great deal of time trying to do. It’s not just in the opposition — granted that the tradition has been for the opposition to hold the government to account — but in the new evolution of this chamber, other senators equally play an important role in that accountability in general in the chamber, wouldn’t you say?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Definitely. Senators ask excellent and sometimes tough questions. Senators are independent; at least they are more so now that the prime minister who appointed them is no longer in office. They ask good questions.
However, that does not eliminate the constitutional role of the opposition, which must carry out its responsibilities and fulfill its obligations as the opposition, which include holding the government to account. Being a member of the official opposition adds another layer to the mandate of a senator, just as does being a government senator.
[English]
The Chair: Before we go to round two, I’m going to use the chair’s privilege to ask you a question that allows me to put on record some things I want to say.
With respect to the Forty-second Parliament — that’s the only parliament I can speak to directly — would you agree that in leaders’ meetings, the issue of who should appear was regularly discussed, and we had an ongoing list, because we needed time, amongst leaders. Yes, it certainly started with the leader of the Conservative caucus, and your successors — both Senator Smith and Senator Plett — provided the list, but it was also other leaders invited to provide their suggested list. Often they overlapped, but when they didn’t, over the sweep of time, we tried to ensure that the priorities of all of the groups were represented.
Would you agree that, on one occasion, when the then Leader of the Government in the Senate proposed that the Prime Minister should come, the Leader of the Opposition declined, and it was agreed that the Prime Minister would not come, because the list should be, in a sense, the consensus of the leaders of groups in the Senate, not the GRO?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I can talk about the times when I was at the meetings. We had three Question Periods before you were appointed to the Senate. Three ministers appeared as witnesses.
I was talking about this with Senator Cowan the other day; yes, it did work well when you were there. Ministers were suggested to you, and most of the time we managed to get the minister we wanted and had made the priority. When there was that kind of collaboration, things worked well. However, if collaboration like we had with you when you were here does not exist, and if you bring in ministers who are not in the news or about whom there is no consensus, the Senate has to put its foot down and demand to hear the ministers they want to hear. These days, I could talk to you about the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure.
Regarding the rejection of the prime minister, that was definitely not me. I don’t know what discussions you had, with whom, and when. I don’t recall you offering me the prime minister, because I would definitely have accepted.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, and I agree with your comments.
Senator Batters: Wow. I could have potentially questioned Prime Minister Trudeau? That would have been fun.
First of all, Senator Carignan, I want to go back to one important topic. Obviously, Question Period would be the primary method, on a daily basis, of holding the government to account for the opposition in the Senate. Generally, as a rule, Question Period is to be without notice on demand. Maybe you could just speak to the importance of that routine of Question Period being a daily accountability feature for the opposition to be able to use.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I think it is fundamental. In many organizations, a question period is essential to the validity of the meeting. If I put my former municipal councillor hat back on: without a question period, the meeting is null and void.
Last, it is important to have an opportunity to press the government to answer questions about its administration. The daily question is important, because it quite often happened to me that in preparing for Question Period I saw an event that had just happened and had to prepare questions about that. Obviously, the government takes actions every day and sometimes even several times a day.
So the question of the need to have a daily Question Period reflects the fact that situations in the news change very rapidly. Sometimes people want to talk at length for several days at a time about certain truly crucial topics, and sometimes you have to act in the moment and not wait two weeks before asking a question about a particular issue.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Going into that a bit more, one thing that came to my mind as a few people were questioning is that perhaps another reason for flexibility in having a sessional order as compared to an actual rule being instituted on this is sometimes there are different situations. For example, in the last 20 years, there was actually a period of at least a few years where there were two ministers daily in Question Period in the Senate. They were Leader of the Government in the Senate Marjory LeBreton and Minister Michael Fortier, who I believe was Minister of Public Works. I believe Senator LeBreton, for at least a time, also was Minister of State (Seniors) — not a Secretary of State for Seniors, as we recently had in our Senate Question Period. That may be a reason why you wouldn’t necessarily need to have a ministerial Question Period enshrined in the Rules.
There was something else I wanted to go back to with you. There was a question asked when we had our previous witness here about regular Question Period and what it was like. Who asked you questions? How did it go? Can you give us a bit of light as to how regular Senate Question Period went when you were the Senate government leader?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: It was regular and it was always at the same time. At every Senate meeting, there was a Question Period. And sometimes it was even Monday evening or Friday morning, but there was always a Question Period enshrined in the Rules.
I am trying to remember, but I don’t think there was a time limit for answering. So there wasn’t one, no. I recall that sometimes I took more time, or not, depending on the situation in the news or on the question, but it sometimes allowed for taking time to give a complete answer to the question. That was how it worked and it went well.
[English]
Senator Batters: It was generally opposition senators who would ask you questions for most of that period of time. Occasionally, there were independent senators or non-affiliated senators, of whom there were some, but not government senators. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: It might come from anywhere, but let’s say it was mainly people in the opposition who asked the most questions.
I recall that the non-affiliated senators, like Senator Cools, asked questions regularly, but each of them had their own field. When Senator Dallaire was asking the question, I knew it would relate to the army. Each of them had their own field of expertise, if I may put it that way, and I knew, for example, that Senator Mitchell would be asking me questions about the environment.
[English]
Senator White: Thank you, senator.
I agree with having ministerial Question Period, as it’s a good process that ensures accountability and transparency, but what I would really like to hear is if you have any suggestions on how we can make Question Period a more effective mechanism or a way to foster greater accountability. If you have any thoughts, I would be interested in hearing them.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I think that when we have the minister we want, to cover the contemporary or urgent events we are interested in, everything else follows.
So the most important point is that the time it is happening be predictable, so it happens regularly, on the same date, at the same time, and there is also the question of choosing the minister. I can’t count the number of times journalists have called me to ask: “Senator, can you tell us when such-and-such a bill is going to be debated?” and I have to answer: “I don’t know, maybe at some point.” They don’t come back to it, so they lose interest in following it, unless it is a bill that is really very….
So it is the same thing for Question Period. When they knew there was a high-level minister coming, it was predictable and they could plan their day and their activities around the minister who would be present.
So it is extremely important to have a degree of predictability.
[English]
Senator Downe: I thank the witness for being here. I recall that you did an outstanding job when you were government leader.
What is your response to the argument that, since the Senate is not a confidence chamber and it doesn’t defeat the government, the responsibility of holding the government to account is in the House of Commons where elected members have a mandate from the population as opposed to the appointed senators? It’s not really part of the Senate’s job to hold the government to account; it’s the Senate’s job to review and improve legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: That is why I quoted Justice Binnie right at the start, who said that the Senate also had a role to play in that.
The government has a majority in the other place, so we should not expect the opposition members in the House to be able to do the same work equally effectively if the other side, the Senate, is also doing the work of holding the government accountable.
We have to some extent lost a part of the mission we had: to conduct inquiries. Committees are working more and more infrequently on subjects of inquiries on which we could hold the government accountable and make sure the government and public administration are working well. There are a lot of subjects of inquiries that were done before and are no longer being done. Ultimately, the Senate did this in a way as part of its role as the grand inquest of the nation.
So there are different ways of doing this. We can question the minister, question the government, and we can also conduct inquiries that would mean that in the other place, and we have all sat on joint committees, people could see the extent to which it is partisan. If the government has the majority on a committee, there are topics that will never be studied, while here, we can do it and move inquiries like this forward. But this is no longer being done much.
So it is our role; Justice Binnie said so.
Obviously, that comes from the Supreme Court, where he was a judge. These are also the Supreme Court’s ideas about Canadian constitutional law and the role of the Senate. I will keep saying it; I don’t mind.
[English]
Senator Downe: Ministerial Question Period currently serves a number of roles. Hopefully, you get some information from the minister, but obviously that doesn’t always happen. On many occasions we have ministers just reading talking points and not even addressing the question. There is also an opportunity to raise awareness for anyone who may be watching, and it’s equally important to raise awareness among your fellow senators about issues they may not know the details of. As you said, people have certain expertise in certain areas. Senator Dallaire would often raise things that none of the rest of us knew, and senators currently do that.
Is there any way that we can make ministers aware that, notwithstanding the partisan nature and holding the government to account, the Senate tends to be mostly less partisan than the House of Commons and they could be more open in their responses with more detail? Do you see that happening at all?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I think that can be done. I think they feel that way too. We feel they are more…. Yes, some of them will do that, because they are nervous, or the new ministers will read their notes, but others who are more comfortable will loosen up more. I don’t think Dominic LeBlanc reads from notes when he comes here. He is pretty comfortable. He is like a fish in water, I might even say. It varies.
I think all ministers or all participants know that the Senate goes about things in greater depth, and less partisan questions get asked here. That doesn’t stop somewhat more partisan questions being asked at times, but the idea is to get the real answer.
As I often said when I was preparing clients for discovery, counsel for the other side is dangerous. Even if you think they are very nice, they are just as dangerous as the other one who argues with you. It is just a different technique for getting the information. So beware; they are not your friend.
[English]
The Chair: Good advice.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Carignan, I would like to get hour opinion on this. Your group’s brief said it, and it has also been discussed: a minister may not be compelled to attend and appear. However, I am going to read you rule 12-31(4) dealing with Committees of the Whole:
When a bill or other matter relating to the administrative responsibility of the government is being considered by a Committee of the Whole, a minister who is not a Senator may, on invitation of the committee, enter the chamber and take part in debate.
Could this kind of change to the Rules, for example for Question Period, having something that is not prescriptive but is still offering encouragement for something to be done, be one approach? I know you prefer the sessional order, but if we are considering making a change to the Rules, would this be something that would be consistent with what we already have for Committees of the Whole?
Senator Carignan: What I suggest is that we retain a degree of flexibility. So I am comfortable with any wording that maintains some flexibility.
We have to be careful about using “may,” because sometimes you want to do things right, but it complicates life. You want to compel them to come, but it says “may,” so their answer will be “no,” because it says “may.” So you have to be careful.
I very much liked — and Senator Cowan is there — the Liberal caucus technique, which was “no minister, no bill.” So if no minister comes, you are not going to get your bill. I can tell you that as leader, I arranged to get a minister. So there are still some things and we have a degree of power that means we can compel attendance more indirectly; it still packs a punch.
[English]
Senator Downe: Just as a clarification, “no minister, no bill” was copied from Senator LeBreton when she was in opposition.
The Chair: That’s an important footnote.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Senator LeBreton was government leader, not opposition leader.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Carignan, I want to thank you for your testimony. Senator, thank you very much, and thank you, Senator Cowan, for being here.
Colleagues, our next session is November 4. I would suggest that that is where we have a discussion on where we are and find whether or not there’s a consensus to move forward in a particular way with the draft report.
But we also have not yet heard from the existing Government Representative, Senator Moreau, who wasn’t able to attend today. His office tells us that he may not be available in the next while. In order to square that circle, could I suggest that I write Senator Moreau and ask whether he has a statement with respect to this motion that could inform our deliberations so that we not be held up in our consultations, unless, of course, he comes back with a statement that we want to spend some time reflecting on? I put that forward.
Senator Batters: Yes, I was going to ask when he anticipates being able to come, because, perhaps, we could wait to ask him for such a statement until we know on November 4 whether he will — perhaps we’ll even know in the next few days whether November 4 — if that’s the Tuesday — would be the appropriate day for him to attend. If not, we’d have more of an idea going forward. I think that is important testimony to receive, especially because we asked for Minister Steven MacKinnon to come, and he has declined, saying that he preferred to have the government speak for him. I believe we need to have the government not just speaking but also answering questions here.
The Chair: I do know that he will not be available on November 4. I’m suggesting an interim step to acquaint us with the views that he holds, and we can discuss on November 4 how to proceed.
Senator Ringuette: Chair, I agree with you. In the interim, I think it is a wise move to make, to ask if he has a statement to make on the issue, relative to the short period of time that he has been in his current position. I do hope we can have it by next week so that it can be incorporated in our discussion.
The Chair: If it is agreeable as a consensus, I will write Senator Moreau and ask for a statement by November 4, which doesn’t obviate the possibility of an appearance at a subsequent date, but it doesn’t hold us hostage either.
With that agreement, I adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)