THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 4, 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: My name is Peter Harder. I’m a senator from Ontario and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I would now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, Charlottetown.
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: I note for the viewing audience that we’ve just been joined by Senators Yussuff and Dean, both from Ontario.
Senators, we are meeting in public to continue our study on the inclusion of provisions to Question Period with a minister. The objective of the motion that was sent to us from the chamber was to determine whether Question Period with a minister should be codified within the Rules of the Senate; and, if so, to determine the details of this provision. We have heard from a number of witnesses. We have received written correspondence, including from the Government Representative in the Senate.
Before I proceed, I want to acknowledge that Senator Batters from Saskatchewan has joined the committee.
I would suggest the first item we have to determine is whether or not we would be of the view that the Rules of the Senate should codify the Question Period with a minister. We have heard a number of witnesses on this. We have had some discussion in the committee. I would open it up for a comment or discussion as to whether or not this committee will recommend that the Rules be adopted to codify Question Period with a minister.
Senator Ringuette: I want to thank our researchers for the document that synthesizes the views of all the witnesses we have entertained. It was not an easy task; I can understand that.
Colleagues, barring that document and the discussion we had with the witnesses, I have taken the liberty of putting together some words that could be adopted or recommended in our report for changes to the rules that would also provide for the flexibility that our witnesses were suggesting.
I have taken the liberty of giving a copy to the clerk, if she could distribute it and we could go through it together.
Senator Batters: Chair, I would suggest before we get into the particulars of going through line by line what an amendment to our Rules might look like, maybe we could start with a discussion — that I think that you were trying to initiate — of whether it should be in the Rules or not or if we should continue to use sessional orders, which there were differing views and the summary of evidence sets that out pretty clearly.
The Chair: That is absolutely the case. I think the document before us will put into relief as to whether or not we wish to have it incorporated into the rules or not. I would expect that you or others with a differing view will express that in the context of the document that is being circulated.
I give the floor back to Senator Ringuette to take us through her proposal.
Senator Ringuette: Colleagues, I will do this in English, but you will see the French translation is also provided for.
Under our Rules, Question Period is under section 4:
Subject to subsections (2) and (3), during Question Period, a Senator may, without notice, ask a question of:
(a) the Leader . . . of the Government, on a matter relating to public affairs;
The rest of that rule stays the same. We would be adding 4-8(2) under the guise of “Question Period with a minister.” It would read:
The Senate may receive any minister of the Crown who is not a member of the Senate, subject to subsection (3), during Question Period to respond to questions relating to their ministerial responsibilities.
We would add 4-8(3):
As soon as practicable at the beginning of each session, the Leader or Representative of the Government shall move a motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, setting the frequency and procedural and logistical conditions for Question Period with a minister of the Crown who is not a member of the Senate for the remainder of the session, including any adjustments from normal procedure and practice that may be required in the circumstances. This motion shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote.
We would also add 4-9(1):
When responding to an oral question during Question Period, a Senator or a minister of the Crown who is not a member of the Senate may indicate that a delayed answer will be provided in writing pursuant to the terms of this rule.
And we would also add 4-9(6):
Within 60 calendar days of the Leader or Representative of the Government, a Senator who is a minister or a minister of the Crown who is not a member of the Senate, indicating that a delayed answer . . . .
The rest of it provides no change.
I believe these words capture the wishes of our witnesses, i.e., the details of how, when and who should be in the sessional agreement between all of the leaders and this provides for much flexibility.
The flip side to that is we also recognize that for the last 10 years, as senators we appreciate having ministers come in front of us for Question Period. This would put an obligation in the rules for the Leader of the Government and all the leaders to agree on procedure and some details.
I am open to questions. This is up for discussion. I do not know if anyone else has other proposals to put on the table. For now, this is the proposal I am making.
The Chair: Thank you. As chair, I would suggest we pause now to reflect on whether or not there is a consensus in this committee that this provision of rule change, with the flexibility inherent in it, meets the consensus view of this committee, or are there other views to either not entrench it at all in the Rules or to add greater detail and circumscribe the optionality of a sessional order with respect to the terms and conditions of the rule change?
Senator Batters: On this, it has been clearly expressed previously — in writing and witness testimony after questioning of those witnesses by senators around this table — that there are some of us who do not believe this should be entrenched into the Rules, that the current sessional order and doing it in that manner is acceptable. That is what we heard from Senator Carignan when he was here. He was the individual who came up with this innovation to our practices in 2015 when we did not have a Government Leader in the Senate for a period of three or four months. This was how we were able to get some accountability from the government at that point. Senator Carignan testified about that in detail.
We received a detailed Conservative caucus brief — twice as long as what the Government Representative in the Senate provided to us late last night — where it set out such things in detail and it is summarized in this summary of evidence:
While we support the principle and objectives of the ministerial Question Period, we do not believe it appropriate to enshrine this practice in the Rules of the Senate. Such formalization risks introducing unnecessary rigidity into a process whose strength lies precisely in its flexibility, dialogue and consensus among political groups.
That was one of the points made about that in the caucus brief.
We also received a written submission from Senator Pamela Wallin who said she was opposed to having ministerial Question Period because the Rules did not allow for appropriate follow-up or accountability. It was not only one group. It was also a senator from a different group other than the Conservatives. We did hear differing views on that.
For good reason, I think it should remain as it is, in a sessional order.
Senator D. M. Wells: What we are faced with now is the convention that we have exercised over the last ten years of having ministerial Question Period when we decide to have it, and we have done that through the provision of a sessional order.
Now, we are putting it in, and because it is in the document Senator Ringuette provided, under the new provision it says, “The Senate may receive any minister.” We may receive any minister now. This is codifying a “may,” which is an option, not a “shall,” which is a directive.
I do not see this as any different than what we do now, because we may do it now, as we have done it for the last 10 years — as was not done for many years before that — so that was a decision or, by lack of action, no decision to have ministerial Question Period.
I do not see the difference between this, especially because it says, “The Senate may receive . . . .” Right now, the Senate may receive. The Senate decides all of our activities, rules and conventions. This is aside from the note that came in from the Conservative caucus that Senator Batters referred to.
I do enjoy the flexibility the Senate also enjoys, because it means we can evolve over time and, where it becomes necessary, we can make a decision that a convention can become a rule. Any time you put it in a rule, it is some kind of restriction, whether it is a restriction of choice or some other restriction.
My preference is that the Senate maintain its ability to, in this case and in all cases — I will use a term that is a hockey term — that we can change on the fly and act as needed, when needed, rather than there be a directive.
Here, I would say, Senator Ringuette, there is not a directive. It is still “may,” not “shall.” In any case, for the last 150 years, it has been a “may.” It has been unspoken. Now we are saying it is still a may, but we’re writing it down.
My thought is, if there is nothing wrong with what we have, and the suggested change is to have what we have, then I do not see the purpose of changing it because it gives us entire flexibility in doing what the chamber thinks is the right thing to do, whether by consensus or by vote.
Senator Dean: If we go back and look at this, I view this as a demand-driven change, which was more about pull than something being pushed us on us.
We widely see ministerial presence in the chamber as a significant symbol and reality of accountability. There is reference in this text to added accountability with written answers. We would like to see that, I’m sure.
It remains entirely optional and flexible. We may choose to do it, we may choose not to. There may be Senates that would like more of this, there may be Senates that would like less.
This is becoming and will remain an essential part of bringing direct ministerial accountability into the Senate. That is important. It is worthy of a rule that continues to have optionality. I would be inclined to support it for all those reasons.
Senator Ringuette: In reply to Senator Wells, I understand his comments. I have no issue in changing the word “may” to the word “shall” because, at the end of the day, it is the sessional agreement that is an obligation in what is being proposed here. It is a sessional agreement where leaders of all parties and government would agree on a process, procedure, timelines and so forth.
If Senator Wells wants to remove the word “may,” I have no objection to it being “shall.”
Senator Burey: I wish to comment on the intent of the original rule 4-8(1). I see that subject to subsections (2) and (3), if we go down to (b), we see “a Senator who is a minister, on a matter relating to that Senator’s ministerial responsibility.” We do not have any senators who are ministers at this current point.
I am returning to first principles and the intention of the original rule, which wanted to have ministers answer. Now we don’t have any senators, at least in this iteration of the modernization of the Senate.
In the spirit of the intent of the original rule, the answer to the question which you posed to us: Should we codify in our Rules a ministerial Question Period? To that question, I will answer yes. The details and everything else we are discussing here need to be worked out. I will not comment on the other things at this point.
Senator K. Wells: I support this proposal. It strikes the right balance. It is important to set the expectation in the Rules and to signal to a future government this is the expectation of the Senate. This provides enough flexibility for the details to be dealt with separately, but I think it is important for us to codify. It has been a practice to signal to the public and the current and future governments that this is the process moving forward.
Senator D. M. Wells: I was not making a suggestion. To Senator Ringuette’s point concerning the “may” and “shall,” I was not making a suggestion. I was pointing out this is no different than what we do now.
The Chair: It is not threatening.
Senator D. M. Wells: Exactly.
The Chair: It is codifying a convention of tenures.
Senator D. M. Wells: If you codify a “may,” Senator Harder — how will I word this — the speed limit is 100, but you may go above it. Is that codified? Is it against the law to go 110? No. It is a “may,” not you shall adhere to the speed limit, you may. This is the same thing we have now.
We may have Senate Question Period when it suits us, but we may not when it suits us. The Senate has been like that since its inception. As I said in my earlier remarks, any time you codify ,you put a restriction.
Senator Saint-Germain: To Senator D. M. Wells’s point, I’m wondering, would you suggest that we delete all the “mays” we find in the Rules?
I have in mind rule 12-31 regarding Committee of the Whole, which is, “A motion to resolve the Senate into a Committee of the Whole may be moved without notice.”
You have a lot of “mays,” not only “shall.” In order to be consistent, is it your proposal we delete all the “mays” that we have codified in the Rules?
Senator D. M. Wells: I have made no proposal. I would prefer “may” because it obviously continues the flexibility we enjoy. I make no proposal other than to point out that we have flexibility because everything we do is a “may.” It is by choice of the Senate. We discuss it. We debate it. Sometimes we have consensus. Sometimes we have general agreement. Sometimes we have a vote. That is how we decide things.
Once we say “shall,” then we put restrictions on ourselves. We can overturn a “shall” with the same debate, discussion, consensus and vote. We can do the same thing with “shalls” as well.
It is not even about ministerial QP. I enjoy it. I think it is terrific. I get great benefit from it as a member of the opposition. I may not get great benefit if I were a member of government, but I see its value and I appreciate its value. As we did a couple of times last week, we have Senate QP but we can decide not to exercise it on that day just by agreement.
My whole point on this is not so much about ministerial Question Period, it is let’s not restrict ourselves when convention guides our activities and agreement guides that convention. That is my point.
The Chair: For technical purposes, I want to underscore that were we to adopt “shall,” there would have to be other changes as Senator Saint-Germain has already referenced. I would from the chair caution that change, but I leave it to the committee.
Senator Batters: First of all, just on this whole “may” question and with respect to something like Committee of the Whole, it is necessary we have “may” there because it is very much a practice that happens from time to time when it needs to happen, not something that happens in a regular time frame. That would be the necessity of having “may” in that sort of time frame. I could not decide all of the other ones before seeing them.
One reason to not have a rule that says “shall” with respect to ministerial Question Period is because the Senate cannot actually compel a minister who is not a senator to appear. We shouldn’t put “shall” if we cannot compel someone because then what’s the remedy? With respect to that, I continue to say that sometimes when things are working well and the flexibility has been shown here, why introduce an element of rigidity where it doesn’t need to exist?
Senator Yussuff: The evolution of the Senate in terms of ministerial Question Period has been a positive development in the period that it has been happening. Sessional orders have made it possible for that to happen. It is also incumbent upon us reflecting on it, like many rule changes we have made, is to codify it in a way that also provides for flexibility. It does not take away from the other. It speaks to senators and the Senate taking responsibility for it and the expectation of government in the context of our interaction with them.
The reality is that this rule is a good one and also speaks to expectation. Regardless of who the government is, they know that senators are expecting the ministers to be in the chamber and to be able to answer questions that will come from them. I do not see that as a bad thing. What has worked to date has been relatively working well, but we are also mature enough to go ahead and say this is now a rule and we will work with flexibility that from time to time we need to adjustments to adjust for a minister’s schedule and what have you. I support the proposal. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I wish to thank Senator Batters for having made the argument for me in regard to the word “may.” I appreciate that.
The second thing is now that we have read, looked at and discussed the proposal in front of us, senators around the table are ready to answer your first question, which was, are we ready to have ministerial Question Period put in one form or another — we have a proposal in front of us — in the Rules?
The Chair: To sharpen that debate, senators, it is for you to move that as a motion for the committee.
Senator Ringuette: Then I shall move.
The Chair: We can discuss it as a motion and either advance or reject the motion so we have the views of the committee. It would be helpful if, at some point, the committee concluded on this question because that would determine the future direction of the conversation.
Senator Batters: First of all, I do not believe we are ready to go to this question. I have many issues I wish to raise specifically with the wording of this proposed motion I was just presented with 10 minutes ago.
Also, having had a chance to read this letter from the Government Representative in the Senate late last night — we asked for this submission about a week ago when it became clear that the Government Representative in the Senate was unable to come and testify at our committee this week. He asked to be able to provide the submission. It came to us late last night.
Having read through it, it is extremely vague. This was initially a government motion. This was the government motion they wanted us to study at the Rules Committee the possibility of having this entrenched into the Rules of ministerial Question Period and whether there were any changes needed to the current practices and things like that.
We have not been able to hear from the government leader. Reading his submission, there is very little detail. There are many questions I wish to ask him. It is vague on how the process of his office dealing with the government to decide which minister — or apparently, as they sent us recently, a secretary of state who couldn’t answer any questions — and how that happens.
Having this vague letter, as compared to having the Government Representative in the Senate being able to appear and answer questions about how that process happens, how the process of consultation happens, isn’t sufficient to be able to carry on.
I know an initial deadline was set. Committees request extensions to their deadlines all the time. If the government leader is not able to attend in the next few weeks — I’m not sure what the time frame is — we can certainly put this down for the time being and move forward with it when the government leader is able to come because that’s an essential part of this process.
Senator D. M. Wells: It is my view that my arguments aren’t about ministerial Question Period; they are about restrictions on the Senate. Senator Yussuff is helping me make my point. When we embarked on ministerial Question Period 10 years ago, we were able to do that because there was nothing restricting us from doing it.
Imagine if, 10 years ago, we had a rule that said Question Period in the Senate shall be committee chairs and the Government Leader in the Senate; we wouldn’t have had that flexibility to invite ministers in if that were the “shall.” We would have had to change the Rules or make a sessional order overlooking that rule. That is my point.
In my view, ministerial Question Period has been a success. It’s an additional layer of accountability for the government, which is one of the Senate’s responsibilities. We were able to do that and enjoy that because we didn’t have such a restriction 10 years ago when we gave this consideration.
The Chair: Colleagues, I think we’re at the point where we have to bring conclusion to how we move forward or not.
I would propose that we have either a show of hands first or a recorded vote, depending on the will of the committee, on whether or not to adopt the motion before us as a committee. Is that agreeable?
Senator Batters: Not yet, because I think we should have a discussion about whether we want to go forward, potentially with a motion. I have a number of different questions and possibly there are problems with it.
The Chair: We have a motion before us and you have spoken to it several times.
Senator Batters: Yes. Then I would like to raise some questions about the particulars of the motion. I thought we were still in the process of having a discussion about whether we should have ministerial Question Period entrenched in the Rules.
The Chair: This motion is the vehicle for that conversation.
Senator Batters: Then I would like to bring some problems up with this particular motion if that’s what’s happening.
The Chair: Please go ahead.
Senator Batters: In the new provision 4-8(3), it says:
As soon as practicable at the beginning of each session, the Leader or Representative of the Government shall move a motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group . . .
And then it sets out all these different particulars.
Given that wording, it would mean that to comply with the Rules, every single time it would have to be a unanimous motion by all those different leaders or facilitators of those groups. The government has to move it. The Leader of the Opposition has to agree to it. The leader or facilitator of all other recognized parties or parliamentary groups must agree to it, otherwise it would not comply with this.
If it doesn’t comply with this, it means there could not be a ministerial Question Period for that particular session because it wouldn’t go forward with those Rules.
Another part of it is that is problematic at the end of it, it says, “This motion shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote.” Why does that need to be in there? I already set out who has to agree to it. It’s the government’s motion. The Leader of the Opposition has to agree. The leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or parliamentary group has to agree. By having that but saying “The motion shall be deemed adopted without debate or vote,” this would set out the frequency and procedural logistics about those ministerial Question Periods — including any adjustments from normal procedure and practice — and none of that would be allowed to have debate or vote in the Senate.
What that would effectively do as well is take away the abilities for all non-affiliated senators to say anything about the motion; they wouldn’t be able to speak about it in the Senate.
Only the leaders have the ability to consent. That would also assume that the leaders of all groups that consider themselves quite independent, their members in that group would not be able to speak to it in any way, yet they may disagree with something, perhaps for good reason. It might be something that does need debate and potentially a vote, or at least the ability for the Senate to know what the problems are. There would be no ability for that to happen.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, would you like to respond?
Senator Ringuette: Before I do, I would like to know if that is the end of the comments or questions from Senator Batters so I can deal with them.
Senator Batters: It will depend on how you respond. I don’t know. We’ll see how you respond to those questions. They’re pretty serious questions that need answers.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Batters, first, many of us in the Senate enjoy the fact that there is collaboration between the different group leaders. This is an indication that we want cooperation to continue, as it has been occurring in the last 10 years.
I don’t know about your group, but in my group, any sessional agreement that would be discussed with our leadership would also be a subject of information and discussion in our group prior to that.
With regard to the non-affiliated members, it has been a practice from the leader or representative of the government that they assume the consultation process with non-affiliated senators. I stand by the fact that, once everyone has agreed, a sessional motion is tabled and it should be deemed adopted by the entire Senate.
Senator D. M. Wells: The question of truly independent or non-affiliated senators that Senator Batters made, that’s partially true. There are also senators who are with groups and caucuses that also have independent thought. I don’t necessarily agree with my leader on negotiated things among leaders, as we’ve discussed here.
You’ll recall that I voted against an agreement among leaders recently with the addition of Senator LaBoucane-Benson on steering of the Energy Committee. I disagreed with that. I spoke about it in the chamber. It was against what was agreed among leaders. It’s not just the non-affiliated senators who perhaps don’t want to cede authority to anyone else. I have my own opinions on this, and I will speak those opinions whether my leadership or agreement from all leaders occurs.
I won’t cede my own independent view on things and I will speak about them when I feel moved to do so.
I thank Senator Batters for bringing up the point of, no debate, this motion shall be deemed carried because, as you know and as you hear now, I have an opinion about it at committee and I may want to express that opinion — if the motion is contrary to my opinion — in the Senate. I would like to enjoy my right to do that. I don’t want this motion to take away that right regardless of what any leader might agree to among themselves.
The Chair: I have Senator Batters wishing to get back in depending, of course, on how Senator Batters pursues this matter. My view at the present time as chair is to call the question after Senator Batters’ comments.
Senator Batters: Just responding to a few of the issues Senator Ringuette raised, sometimes the government motion comes only a few hours before they want to try to put it through the chamber, so there is not sufficient time to have a really full debate in the different groups and caucuses that exist; sometimes there is and sometimes there isn’t. So to forestall any debate or vote on a democratic process that’s taking place in a democratic institution, I find it bizarre and not necessary. I mean, why do we need to have that part of the motion in here? I don’t think that’s necessary.
Also, by having such a focus that basically the only people that have direct involvement in the process would be the leaders or facilitators of groups — let’s remember, this includes groups that consider themselves to be very independent and they specifically say that they don’t have essential agreement on these types of issues, they’re not a caucus. They speak very frequently about not being a caucus, they’re just more of a loose conglomeration of senators.
If we have this kind of motion as it exists right now in that particular part, again, for a committee that currently has an ongoing study on the rights of non-affiliated senators, will add this to just one other thing that non-affiliated senators will not have the ability to do. Sometimes the government might go to them to consult, but there is nothing in here that says that they need to. The non-affiliated senators might have very specific problems with such a motion, perhaps maybe even how they would be entitled to ask questions of ministers in those ministerial Question Periods.
I feel we’re getting further away from what the Senate always was for 150 years — equality of senators, not equality of groups. Now, ironically, in a Senate where many say it is such an independent Senate, it is groups that govern the day and not senators. Like Senator Wells said, there are times where we agree very much with the leadership in our groups and there are times that we don’t. We certainly should allow for those issues to be debated and voted upon if necessary in the Senate, rather than to specifically — in a motion about a democratic proceeding — forestall debate and vote in the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m surprised we’re having this conversation because, at the beginning of each session — indeed, of each quarter of meetings — the leaders are consulted. The government consults unaffiliated senators and gives us time to ask all the senators which ministers they would like to invite for Question Periods. That’s the basis upon which the government makes decisions in consultation with the leaders, to determine exactly when a particular minister will be invited.
I’ve been involved with leadership meetings for some eight years now, and I don’t remember ever having a problem with a caucus or a group regarding the choice of a minister. I have no memory of that ever happening.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we have a motion on the floor. I would ask by a show of hands all those in favour of the motion.
Senator Batters: Recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote is being asked for. Clerk, would you proceed with a recorded vote, please.
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.?
Senator Harder: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Dhillon?
Senator Dhillon: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Surette?
Senator Surette: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable D.M. Senator Wells?
Senator D. M. Wells: No.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: Yes.
Ms. Fortin: Yeas 12, nays 2.
The Chair: The motion is therefore carried.
Colleagues, that is the first step. That is to say, this committee will recommend to the Senate that the Rules be adopted to entrench Question Period with ministers, with the flexibility that is referenced with the sessional order.
I think it would also be appropriate for this committee to — while not prescribing the sessional order — give some expression to what the sessional order should deal with. We’ve heard witnesses, testimony and indeed some discussion amongst ourselves as to how this should move procedurally. Obviously, we’re leaving out the sessional to the authority of the leaders, but are there issues that this committee would like to incorporate in its report that speaks to the circumstances, timing, issues of decorum, determination of ministers, frequency, et cetera? I would suggest that we come to a list of those with some views that hopefully could be incorporated in the report that our staff would draft for us for review at the next meeting.
I could open it up for general conversations on what should be included. I could also go through some of the headings of issues that I think would benefit from the views of this committee. Perhaps we could open it up for a broader conversation first.
Senator D. M. Wells: I apologize to colleagues because I’m not highly engaged in the topic of ministerial Question Period, but just on the question of the freedom of the Senate to do as it decides. But it is an important point to make that we cannot compel ministers. We can make a rule that says we need to have ministerial Question Period and ministers have to show —
The Chair: “May.”
Senator D. M. Wells: Right, but our rule is — well, yes, you’re right, they may, and their decision might be they may not. So it’s putting in a rule that’s unenforceable. I think there should be at least some further discussion about that.
The Chair: Well, I think we’ve had that discussion, with respect —
Senator D. M. Wells: In the chamber when it goes there.
The Chair: Of course we will. We are only making a recommendation to the chamber. It is up to the chamber to determine whether or not they accept the report from this committee.
Senator D. M. Wells: Chair, I thought you were asking for comments we could include when this comes to the chamber.
The Chair: Yes, on the aspects that would have to be considered in a sessional order. That is to say, I think the committee ought to express itself that the determination of which ministers should appear should be in consultation with the Government Representative in consultation with all of the leaders, for example.
Senator D. M. Wells: As it’s done.
The Chair: I think that we should suggest in respect to the distribution of questions proportionality be respected, recognizing — here is where I would hope I find agreement from you — the special role of the opposition. In other words, it’s not proportional only; it recognizes the role of the opposition. I would think that the frequency is something that we should give an expression to. We’ve heard every week, we’ve heard once every two weeks. I think we should have a view to guide the leader discussion.
I think that we should form a view at least on where should the minister be seated. We’ve heard some discussion on this already, and I think that would be helpful to give guidance based on the hearings that we’ve had and the views of this committee.
I would have some reminder to the chamber that the purpose of Question Period with ministers in the Senate is not to duplicate what’s in the House of Commons, but there is a decorum that we expect of Senate Question Period that we want to have referenced. There may be other issues that senators wish to describe or include or not these, but I think our report should not just be that this is the rule change.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you for that. Those are really good points you make and I think I agree with all of them.
One thing I would like to be silent on — but now I’m going to say it and maybe going against my own better judgment to say it. During Question Period that includes a minister — I guess we’re calling it ministerial QP — that it not mean that we cannot also ask questions of committee chairs, the leader of the Government in the Senate.
The Chair: Hold on. We are not determining Question Period. We are determining only Question Period with a minister.
Senator D. M. Wells: I understand that, but if —
The Chair: If we want to have a reference on Question Period outside of that, that would have to be a separate study.
Senator D. M. Wells: I didn’t explain it well, but now I will. If there is a Question Period that includes the minister — we’ll call that ministerial Question Period, but I don’t want to call it that. I would like to say that if there is a minister sitting there and most of the questions are going to the minister, I think there should also be our normal rule, or our current circumstance, where if I don’t have a question for the minister — even though the person is there and their time is important and all of that — that if I want to ask a committee chair a question, because it’s Question Period, that I still should be able to do that. I don’t want the Question Period that has a minister there to be restrictive of my other rights during Question Period in the Senate.
The Chair: Well, I think that’s a question that should be debated more broadly. My personal view on that, you would have a lot of upset senators who were not given a position on the list to ask a minister because of the restrictive nature of proportionality and you took your time to ask Senator Moncion about CIBA.
Senator D. M. Wells: The right is to the questioner, not to the answerer. You will recall, Senator Harder, when Senator Larry Smith was the leader of the Conservatives in the Senate as the opposition and we had a minister appearing, he asked a question to you. And it was important that day for the leader of the Government in the Senate — which was you, Senator Harder, because it was topical to that, because it was referencing something that happened the previous day; perhaps the minister would not have been able to address because it had to do with senators, that I thought that was an appropriate question direction to you and not the minister and the opportunity was there to do it. I think that should be maintained.
The Chair: Senators, are there comments you would wish to make as to what instructions we should give to our staff for what issues and specifically what the views of the committee are on some of the issues that I’ve raised?
Senator Yussuff: I would concur; most of the points you enunciated are ones that I agree with. And I think last week you had raised this point and asked the clerk to inquire that some secretaries of state are not ministers and I think we need to clarify in the context of who gets to come here that the current government, future government will probably have some iteration of what we’re seeing right now with this government that we know that if the person is not in cabinet and we want to hold them accountable, we are clear when the invitation is issued that we get the right person we’re seeking to speak to.
The Chair: I’ll ask your staff.
Senator Yussuff: I did the same thing you were asking with my staff and got an answer, but I’ll wait for it to formally come from the clerk.
François Delisle, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Just to put it in perspective, last week, my colleague and I were asked to prepare a brief summary of the status of secretaries of state, and with regard to the orders-in-council. We consulted all of the orders-in-council related to these secretaries of state and all current secretaries of state are, by order-in-council, ministers of state. They are ministers of state on the basis of section 11 of an act and that was our finding. Perhaps my colleague might add as well.
The Chair: They would be covered by the word “ministers”?
Mr. Delisle: They are considered ministers of state. They can be invited, at the discretion of the Prime Minister, to sit or not at cabinets meetings or on committees of cabinet.
The Chair: Because they’re privy councillors. Colleagues, who is invited for our Senate Question Period with a minister is determined by the leaders collectively. So we are giving them scope, but I personally view that we want ministers who are actually responsible for the acts under their authority.
Senator Downe: I’m not quite clear what that means. What I heard is everybody is now entitled to appear for ministerial Question Period, including ministers of state.
The Chair: But it is our discretion.
Senator Downe: Of course, as it is for any minister of agriculture or defence. That is very important because some of these ministers of state are a little different than in previous governments. I note, for example, that Wayne Long has been assigned the Canada Revenue Agency, so we would obviously like to hear from him and from others.
The Chair: And he would like to hear from you.
Senator Downe: I can confirm that he has heard from me already, personally and in writing.
Senator Yussuff: We have a Secretary of State for Labour who is not the Minister of Labour, so asking the secretary of state to come here, there are certain aspects of the questions he might be able to answer, but the minister who is in cabinet, who has a broader portfolio, will have a different take on answering the same questions. The reason I’m asking this is because I think among us if you don’t understand the nuance, you may not get the answer you’re looking for to be fair to the person because they’re not in cabinet, but their colleagues whom they report to are in cabinet on the continuity of the file. So the file has some limitations of what the secretary of stat — he or she — does versus the minister for that file.
The Chair: Yes, that’s the point I was trying to make and that is leaders in their discussion of who should be on the invitation list need to be aware of those limitations and I would argue our bias would be to have the minister without limitations unless there are specific reasons leaders would choose. That’s not this committee. That’s just the view.
Senator Batters: On that point, first of all, I have other points I want to raise on this general topic we were discussing before we started talking about secretaries of state. We had a secretary of state attend. I don’t know if anyone requested her other than the government. I didn’t hear from any leader of any group that they really wanted to hear from the Secretary of State for Seniors who, when she came, could not even answer questions about her own secretary of state position, let alone a number of other points of view that she later expressed about a week later when she did a press conference. When she was asked about things like elder abuse and crimes pertaining to seniors and things like that, she said that’s not her portfolio. Yet, she did a press conference where she was answering questions to the media about a week later, but she wouldn’t answer to those in the Senate.
So I don’t know, Senator Ringuette, if in your motion that you drafted here when you say — I guess technically in some circles, minister of the Crown — that secretary of state might have qualified, but that was not a good reflection on the Senate that day to have someone who basically refused to answer so many questions. I don’t know if there was a leader that actually requested her, I would be curious to hear that.
Going back to what we were discussing earlier about what should be in this report, I looked up our order of reference. It states that the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized 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 and to submit its final report.
On that, it should be an actual report, not just this motion, which was agreed to by a majority of the committee but not all committee members. We have been hearing from a number of witnesses, some of whom had evidence about how this came to be. I think that is definitely an important part of our study, if we are actually going to do a study for a number of weeks, as we have on this. We should report what we actually found, that we heard this was the history. It is important to know why this initially came to be. What was the evolving practice?
From that, different witnesses told us about what we should have, including senators on this committee. We didn’t testify as witnesses, but many of us have had significant practice with ministerial Question Period over the last decade.
It is also things like, yes, where the person should sit. As I have brought up, including when we had the clerk here, the reason it was generally agreed to most of the time that the minister would sit near the bar, at the desk of the Usher of the Black Rod, and that would be the appropriate place to sit is for history’s sake. It is to recognize the fact that the minister, while they are invited, they are not a senator, and that is the appropriate place to sit. There are historical reasons for these types of things. It is also good to educate the public on these types of differences between the Senate and the House of Commons, many of which stem from a historical narrative.
In addition, we absolutely need to have part of this report talk about the importance of having the opposition, where really, the most important part of Question Period and ministerial Question Period is the ability to hold the government to account. That is the primary function of the opposition in the Senate.
The Chair: But not exclusive.
Senator Batters: I didn’t say it was exclusive. In fact, I brought up those types of points when I was questioning witnesses who were other leaders about the number of times they had used Question Period on both occasions. That is an important point that needs to be included in here. We heard a lot of evidence on that. Our Conservative caucus provided a four‑page brief that set out many facts in a lot of particularity by Senator Carignan, who, of course, was in both roles, in addition to being an opposition senator. He was Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Government in the Senate, so he had those points of view.
We also heard from other senators on things like timing. Personally, yes, I think it should be something that is, at maximum, once every two weeks because the Government Representative in the Senate is the one who is properly briefed by the government and is in a position to answer questions.
I also agree with the comments that Senator D. M. Wells brought up, wherein there isn’t anything in the Rules currently precluding having both types of question periods on the same day. If there is such a pressing concern, we certainly don’t want it to be the case that the government is trying to forestall pressing questions being asked to the Leader of the Government or perhaps to a committee chair or something like that, that they then schedule, with minimal notice, as has recently happened. We even had a ministerial Question Period recently that didn’t meet the leave rules, so leave of the Senate had to be sought to appear. We don’t want to get into a situation where the government is trying to do that on a frequent basis by giving us Secretaries of State who can’t answer questions or junior ministers who don’t have relevance to the timely topics of the day.
Senator Downe: I wish to follow up on Senator Yussuff’s comment.
He correctly identified that the Secretary of State for Labour is a support position to the minister. I would note that many of these secretaries of state have been assigned specific responsibilities, and it would be on those responsibilities we would want to question them. We will leave it up to the leaders to work out who should be asked to appear.
The Chair: Well said. Colleagues, I would like to reach some consensus, at least, on some of the issues to guide the drafting of a report.
Senator Ringuette: Here is my opinion on the different issues that I think should be part of our report.
A secretary of state who attends cabinet meetings should be considered, as they are, per the order-in-council, recognized ministers. We are spinning a wheel here.
In regard to frequency, I think the Senate has been well served at least every second week by having a ministerial Question Period. It is not so much of a — I wouldn’t say a burden, but too much to ask of ministers.
We should also say there should be at least a one-day notice of motion for a minister appearing and the time frame that he will appear, the usual notice we have been receiving.
There is an issue of decorum in the Senate, and it is as follows: When we have Question Period, a senator will rise to ask a question and the Government Representative rises to answer the question. That is the proper way to do Question Period. In our recommendation, we should also state that senators should rise for ministerial Question Period, and they don’t have to flag where they are. The decorum of Question Period would be consistent and different from Committee of the Whole.
What I’m saying here is that I would like a minister appearing for ministerial Question Period to be sitting next to the government leader and rise to answer questions.
The Chair: Senator, can I intervene here?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: I would suggest we do a more disciplined checklist.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. Yes.
The Chair: Undoubtedly, this issue will be one we will be debating, rather than the whole thing.
Senator Ringuette: Okay.
The Chair: First of all, I think we can agree with Senator Batters’ suggestion that the report include references to what we heard about the origins of Senate Question Period with ministers and some of the early practices. I think that would be helpful for the chamber.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: Then we have the entrenchment of the rule change. For guidance to leaders on the sessional order, I would like to pick off those on which I think we can all readily agree.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, okay.
The Chair: That the determination of witnesses — ministers — should be made by the GRO in consultation with leaders and that there be advanced notice of at least a day.
Senator Ringuette: Yes. I think we agree.
The Chair: On frequency, that ministerial Question Period be once every two sitting weeks.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: That the distribution of questioning be proportional but recognize the special role of the opposition in Question Period, the details of which obviously would be negotiated amongst the leaders. We want to, in a sense, put our thumb on the scale for that.
The seating and decorum is one where we probably need to open that up for broader discussion. We may even not reach consensus on that. Hopefully, we can have a recommendation.
Are there other aspects of this that we could achieve ready consensus on?
Senator Batters: I want to go back to one of the points you raised, chair. It is important to note that Senator Carignan talked about how for the first number of years when ministerial Question Period existed, it was very much more the opposition and other group leaders putting it to the government: This is who we want to hear from. It was more that sort of a situation, rather than what it has become now, which is the government telling. Yes, perhaps there is some consultation. It is pretty vague as to how that occurs right now. We have now gotten to an obvious spot where it seems that it is the government telling.
I know recently there has been this one-day notice. When you are in the Senate and you have 12-hour days of back-to-back caucus meetings, committee meetings and Senate sittings, and you are trying to prepare for a minister and have a very limited amount of time to prepare, one day is not very much notice. I personally would like to see it more than that. Question Period is supposed to be one of the most important tools for the ability to hold the government to account. If the government is simply putting whom they want to showcase that day or maybe get out of the House of Commons for a day, that is not a good way to have it.
The Chair: I have two points, if I could, as chair.
We are saying at least one day. Ideally, I would share your view.
With respect to the practice, I can only speak for the first four years, but it was a standing item at leaders’ meetings where the Government Representative asked leaders who they wanted to hear from. There was some discussion amongst leaders as to what the order of priority would be, in a sense directing me to seek the ministers.
There were compromises. I would see that as exactly what we are suggesting be the practice going forward, that the consultation be at the leaders’ level and the confirmation of the order reflect the consensus views of the leaders at the table. In that sense, the GRO is the facilitator of the will of the Senate. Whatever words are used to capture that, I think there is agreement.
Senator D. M. Wells: Chair, I would like there to be wording, if we are going to go with that, “as much time as is practicable” or something.
I know ministers’ jobs are not always as planned. Your Thursday may not be the Thursday that you had looked at on Monday. I think there should be flexibility built in. If we have the “minister of something important” coming in on Thursday and something really important happens on Wednesday, we might want to have the “minister of something really important” instead. Whatever wording we use, there should be flexibility built in and not say, “Well, we did not get 72 hours’ notice so we cannot change it.”
We still have a job to do in holding the government to account and finding out for the people, provinces and territories we represent, as part of the reasoning for questioning ministers. But I think there should also be flexibility for the things that change.
The Chair: Yes. I have no problem with that. All we are doing in this part of our report is speaking to leaders. We’re not determining the sessional order.
The issue on which I would welcome some debate is the issue of seating. We have heard witnesses on different sides of this. Senator Batters has expressed her view, clearly, over the period of this review. Are there views on the table? This is one where I think we will probably have to narrow it to a view of this committee because I do not see language that bridges. I am open to comments from senators.
Senator Downe: The tradition has always been that people stand up for Question Period, other than Committee of the Whole. This is obviously very different from Committee of the Whole. I think we should continue to follow up on Senator D. M. Wells’ earlier comment about Question Period. He might want to ask a committee chair; he would have to stand up under the Rules of the Senate to do that in the middle of ministerial Question Period. Some people are standing up; others are sitting down. We should all stand up is my view.
The Chair: Do you have a view on seating?
Senator Downe: Yes. In my opinion, the minister is on the government side so he should sit with the government. If anyone is watching it, it is a strange set-up compared to what they are used to watching in Parliament.
Senator K. Wells: I would take a split view there at the risk of muddying the waters a little further. I agree with standing up. In practicality, it helps to identify where the person is in the room for all of us, where the questions are coming from. We have a fairly long chamber and sometimes it is hard on the ends to see who is speaking, particularly for someone who is new and perhaps unaccustomed to the chamber or people in the chamber and their spots. It certainly also adds some consistency to the Rules.
I prefer the minister in the position of the Black Rod, in between all of the groups for visibility as well. I think it conveys a sense of someone from outside of the chamber who is coming in — as we know, no one else sits in that spot — and it is a unique way of welcoming them as well to the chamber.
Senator Burey: I am going to agree with Senator Downe and Senator Wells on standing. It is important for being recognized. Style and function I think are important. In the modernization of the Senate, I think we are trying to say that the minister is not the representative of the government in the Senate. I am new. This is just my understanding.
I do feel the seating where the Black Rod is, to me, would be the most appropriate in that reflection.
The Chair: I think we have all of the options on the table.
Senator Ringuette: I do not want to be difficult on this. We believe there is a consensus that we agree that at Question Period a senator should stand. And, therefore, the minister should also stand to answer the question.
Now, that being said, physical adjustments could be done to the Black Rod’s desk. But it would still be odd for us to stand to ask a question and the minister not being able to comfortably stand to answer a question either.
The Chair: Colleagues, as chair, I wish to speak to this from experience.
For the first four years, the minister sat beside the Government Representative. That was for a number of reasons. One was we didn’t have the thought of putting the minister elsewhere. The second was it was consistent with the practice of Question Period, standing and being able to see. It was easier for translation and for the visuals.
It was easier for the minister to stand and to emphasize that they were there unaccompanied by officials. At Committee of the Whole, the minister sits at Black Rod so that the officials can be behind them. That was the theory. It changed over time but what has been suggested is not something that has not been tried or done before.
To advance this, is there consensus there be standing for Question Period?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Standing by the questioner only or by both?
The Chair: By both.
Senator D. M. Wells: Okay.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: No, I only wanted clarification. I am not arguing it.
The Chair: The issue on which we will need to determine, by a show of hands or otherwise, is whether and where the minister attending should sit, recognizing we are only giving a suggestion to leaders.
I have no problem if the report reflects this is a matter on which there were differing views. We should provide a view of the committee with respect to that. There seems to be two choices. One is sitting with the Government Representative for that period, or at the Black Rod’s desk.
Senator Downe: I would suggest a third option, and it would be putting the minister at the clerk’s table where the clerk sits, directly in front of the Speaker.
The Chair: That would certainly facilitate being aware of the timing. The problem with that is the Speaker. The standing would obstruct the view of the Speaker. Again, standing by the Government Representative, you see the clerk standing for your time being up but you can also see the Speaker.
Senator Batters: There were a couple of points, chair, you made that I thought — when our clerk was here testifying — I had made.
I also recall with some significant recollection the years when we had the ministerial Question Period near the start. Perhaps much of this was before you got here, or perhaps it was during those initial years. A number of my colleagues in the opposition caucus were not at all okay with having someone who is not a senator sit directly with the Government Representative in the Senate, that was frequently then.
There were times where we actually started out a Question Period with the minister where the minister was initially trying to sit at that Usher of the Black Rod desk. There is also no problem with having them there. It is a chair that could be pushed out, as we all do when we have to stand up to ask a question.
Some of those times, the Question Period had started. For some reason, I do not know why, but it would happen frequently that there were audio problems. It was only because of the audio problems that then in the middle of what was to be Question Period — or translation problems, or something like that for some reason at that desk at certain times; it was generally when it was at Centre Block, so perhaps all of that has been rectified now that we are in this chamber — the minister had to go sit with the Government Representative in the Senate. That is why it happened.
I heard from many of my colleagues, and I personally had that view and a number of my colleagues did — not all of them, but many colleagues — have a serious problem with it for history’s sake.
This is a different chamber. That is the reason it looks different, or it might seem weird as they are looking at it; there are many things different about the Senate as compared the House of Commons which the public is more used to watching, seeing on news clips or things like that.
Simply because it might look different, there is a reason things look different in the Senate. Those are things that should be embraced rather than let’s make it look exactly the same.
Standing is fine. Standing can be done.
I wished to raise that. Frequent audio problems were a reason that happened. We have not had that happen much since we have been in the new Senate Chamber.
The Chair: Colleagues, I can only say for the Forty-second Parliament that was the practice.
We have debated this sufficiently for me to frame the question. Can I acknowledge there is agreement on standing for Question Period?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: With respect to where the minister should sit, could I have a show of hands of those who wish the practice currently under way of sitting with Black Rod be recommended?
That is seven.
Those who would recommend the sitting with the GRO?
Seven.
So, it is seven-seven.
Can we say the committee was divided in our report?
Senator D. M. Wells: Or united in our division.
The Chair: We were brought together by our division.
I think that would be the best way of reflecting the conversation.
Can I also include a direction to our staff that for the duration of Question Period, we are comfortable with the present practice? It is 64 minutes. I do not think we have to be precise.
Are there other issues that senators would like to have reflected in the report?
Senator D. M. Wells: I do not know if this should be reflected in the report, but it is a Question Period issue I have an issue with. It bothers me. I wish to bring it up here. You may say, chair, that is for another venue to discuss.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: It is the guideline, rule or the position agreed upon by leaders that has a time limit on the question. I understand there has to be a time limit on the question because that can go on forever and it is frustrating. We have all seen it before.
I think there should be flexibility by the Speaker, which is where it belongs, to allow the senator — if they are in mid‑question, or somewhere between the start of their question and the end of their question, as long as it is not part of their preamble — to ask their question. Being cut off when you have two words left is frustrating.
I know this may not be the place.
The Chair: Practising is a good practice.
Senator D. M. Wells: I get that.
The Chair: Noted.
Senator D. M. Wells: I know that is not what we are discussing.
The Chair: Are there other issues? There is a final issue we need to deal with.
Senator Batters: I wish to return to that consultation practice because you, Senator Harder, indicated what happened when you were government leader.
Looking back at the summary of evidence, how it was summarized there for what Senator Gold said about it, he said:
. . . our office conducted formal consultations with staff representatives from each recognized party and parliamentary group to identify their preferred ministers to appear . . . .
That is what Senator Gold said. It was a staff thing. He did not say it was directly with the leaders.
Also in the letter from Senator Moreau that we received late last night, he referred to the fact that the GRO reaches out to each group and caucus asking for a list of ministers they would like to see — lists which are updated on a regular basis. It sounds like it is an ongoing list.
He also said in his letter, talking about leaders table fine‑tuning the consultation process and then says, “Because of my absence, I have only chaired a single leaders’ meeting.” He said at that one, ministerial Question Period did appear on its agenda.
Yes, I feel we do not necessarily have a significant idea as to what has existed for the last number of weeks without further information about that.
The Chair: Yes. Our obligation is to make our recommendations going forward as to how the consultation should take place. My sense of the committee is that this should be a leaders-directed discussion. The Government Representative should take into account the recommendations coming from leaders.
One further issue we need to resolve or come to a view on is the rule change would come into effect at the next session. Is that agreeable? And the obiter, that is to say the commentary we have on the sessional order, can be used as guidance by leaders to either amend the sessional order or come to that discussion later as well. In other words, they can cherry-pick our conversation and our recommendations as they see fit, but this is a sessional order for the next session and a rule change for the beginning of the next session.
Senator Batters: Well, on that, because this motion that was passed today by the majority here, this would be a report going from this committee to the Senate, and then it would be debated.
The Chair: Yes. If that is agreeable, I think the next step is to, at our next meeting, have the draft report from our analysts that will have incorporated what we have agreed to, and we can review that as to whether or not we are satisfied with that report as being one to be adopted and then sent to the Senate.
Is that agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: With that, I would suggest, if there is agreement, that we hold off our discussion of future business until we have accomplished this issue. If the analysts are as brilliant as I believe they can be in capturing our views, we will have time at the next meeting to discuss the order of future business so that we can get our work plan in order for future consideration. If that is agreeable —
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
Senator K. Wells: Just a question. I don’t know. I could send this in writing, but in the report that was shared on the next topic, electronic petitions, I’m just looking for a bit more information to be included in the report of some suggestions for —
The Chair: In which report?
Senator K. Wells: The report that was provided by the clerk on the e-petitions.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator K. Wells: Do you want me to share that now or just send it in?
The Chair: You can send it in for our discussion when we get to that item. If that is okay, I would declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)