Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended:

1.by replacing proposed new rules 4-9(3)(b) to (d) by the following:

“(b) the question is withdrawn; or

(c) the expiration of the 45-day period provided for in this rule for an answer.”;

2.in proposed new rule 4-9(6), by:

(a)changing the number 60 to 45 everywhere it appears, including in the marginal note; and

(b)replacing the words “either the Government’s answer to the question or a written explanation why an answer has not been provided” by the words “the Government’s answer to the question”;

3.in proposed new rule 4-9(8), by replacing the words “tabled neither an answer nor an explanation of why an answer has not been provided within the 60-day period” by the words “not tabled an answer within the 45-day period”; and

4.in point 3 of the paragraph beginning with the words “That, in relation to the amendments to current rules 4-9 and 4-10”, by replacing the words “the provisions of the new rules relating to the 60-day period for answering written questions, tabling, and a failure to respond or provide an explanation take effect” by the words “the provisions of the new rules relating to the 45-day period for answering written questions, tabling, and a failure to respond take effect”.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you for that. I gave my copy to the clerk.

No, the intention is to ensure that we have the opportunity to get a wholesome answer.

Our Leader of the Government in the Senate often has to go and make inquiries to questions that are asked, and he’s in the unfair position, I think, of depending on people outside of this chamber to provide the information to him. Because it’s not dealt with as a priority, those answers sometimes take weeks, months and years, as I said.

The intention of this amendment is to cause the answers to be dealt with in a timely manner, within the period I indicated.

Senator Quinn, colleagues, I agree that the government’s response time to written questions, and to questions in general, is far too long.

At this very moment, we have 97 written questions on the Order Paper that remain unanswered, some of which have been pending for several months, in some cases for over a year.

Today’s Order Paper, for example, contains 57 pages of unanswered questions. That’s more than 60% of the content of our Order Paper.

That being said, we have a new reality that could be surprising. Artificial intelligence can produce questions in just a few minutes, at a dizzying pace. However, the same can’t be said for the time it takes to prepare solid, well-researched answers.

That being said, when it comes to written questions, Government Motion No. 165, which is before us, represents a major step forward compared to what we have in our existing Rules. Under this motion, the government must answer our questions within 60 days, whereas there is no time limit for a response in our current Rules. The motion not only proposes this time limit, which is tight — and I will come back to that later — but it also states that the government must provide an explanation and be subject to a sanction, yes, a sanction, if it does not meet that deadline. The sanction in question is serious and involves the absence of answer being referred to our Standing Committee on Rules for an investigation on a possible breach of privilege, which comes with very serious sanctions.

With all due respect, senator, your comparison with the House of Commons is rather flawed.

I concur fully with Senator Batters’ point. You have a situation in which the comparison you made would withdraw the obligation for the government to explain the reasons for failure to comply with the 60-day or — in the case of the amendment — 45-day time limit. This would make the proposition, in my opinion, far less efficient and the government far less accountable.

For this reason only, we should not support your amendment, but I have additional ones. Allow me, colleagues, to speak a few minutes more to this motion.

As to your comparison with the other place, there are many differences in the context, and I will explain these differences now.

First, in the Senate, only one representative of the government or, in his or her absence, the Deputy Government Representative, can answer questions, including written questions, and handle follow-up — only one person. By contrast, in the House of Commons, 40 members of cabinet can field questions. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is usually present in the House of Commons one day a week for this question period.

In the House of Commons, there is no such sanction and . . .

I’m sorry for interrupting, senator, but it is now 4 p.m.