Honourable senators, I am now prepared to hear further arguments in relation to the point of order raised by Senator Gold on February 27 concerning Motion No. 26 moved by Senator Housakos.

Honourable senators, I rise in response to Senator Gold’s point of order on Motion No. 26 regarding the invitation of ministers of the Crown to come before the Committee of the Whole here in the Senate.

I would like to thank His Honour for giving me the time to look into Senator Gold’s concerns, as they were very technical in essence, and I would like to thank Senator Gold for raising these concerns and he certainly does raise some interesting points. However, it is evident as early as Senator Gold’s opening statement that his point of order is flawed.

Senator Gold inaccurately states that my motion would give “unilateral authority” to the Leader of the Opposition — and this one is very important — to “summon.” He wrongly says the motion would give the Leader of the Opposition the unilateral authority to “summon” a minister of the Crown.

Your Honour, my motion does no such thing. Not only does it not give anyone unilateral authority, which I will get to in a moment, but nowhere in my motion did I use the word “summon.” The motion clearly uses the word “invited.” It states that “a Minister of the Crown to be invited to appear as a witness.”

Senator Gold would be absolutely justified in his concern had the motion been worded to say “summoned” rather than “invited,” which is why it does not. The word “invited” is the appropriate word to use when referring to ministers of the Crown as witnesses. “Invited” or a derivative thereof is used throughout the Rules pertaining to calling such witnesses, including the very rules cited by Senator Gold. In those rules, we see the word “invitation,” that “a minister may on invitation of.” Hence the word “invited” is used in my motion.

There is nothing out of order about the Leader of the Opposition being allowed to “invite” on behalf of the Senate a minister of the Crown to appear before the Committee of the Whole. Perhaps it was an oversight on behalf of the government leader in not seeing the word “invite,” rather than “summon.” I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for giving the Leader of the Opposition some “unilateral authority,” I have a couple of points to make on that. I’ll start with the excerpt Senator Gold selected from Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition, page 70. This particular section talks about the summoning and compelling of witnesses. As I’ve already shown, both Senator Gold and I agree that we can’t summon ministers of the Crown. Not even the Senate has that power. So that particular passage is of no relevance or applicability to my motion nor on this point of order. However, Senator Gold is correct when he says that it is the Senate that determines which witnesses it calls for Committee of the Whole. My motion does not attempt to do otherwise because, as Senator Gold also so rightly points out in citing rule 12-32(3), committees routinely delegate authority to steering to select witnesses.

That’s really all this motion seeks to do. Insofar as the concerns raised by Senator Gold, delegating to the Leader of the Opposition the selection of ministers to appear at Committee of the Whole is no different than delegating selection of witnesses to any steering committee throughout the Senate.

In that same vein, colleagues, remember that what the Senate giveth, the Senate can taketh away. There is absolutely nothing in my motion that would in any way prevent the Senate from overturning the selection of the Leader of the Opposition. The invitation does in fact come from the Committee of the Whole in accordance with the aforementioned rule.

Furthermore, Senator Gold also quotes rule 12-32(4) which governs specifically ministers as witnesses before the Committee of the Whole. Upon closer examination of the rule, senators will notice the use of the word “may.” When the word “may” is used, it is a permission that is granted for an action and not an instruction that the action must occur in a specific way.

As for Senator Gold’s concern regarding Question Period, indeed Senator Gold is correct that debate is not allowed during Question Period. Senator Gold cited rule 4-8(2) which states, “There is no debate during Question Period . . .”and at page 73 of the Companion to the Rules of the Senate where it states they should not give rise to debate. But there is nothing in my motion, Your Honour, that could be defined as debate or allowing debate by the Leader of the Opposition. My motion simply calls for the Leader of the Opposition to make a short statement. While Senator Gold is concerned that the motion itself doesn’t specify what constitutes a short statement, I refer to the very rules he cited for such a definition.

Both of these rules refer to brief comments, explanatory remarks and brief explanatory remarks as being allowed per the rules. I submit that a short statement is synonymous with brief comments, explanatory remarks and brief explanatory remarks. The definition of “short” from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is as follows:

. . . not long in duration; brief (a short time ago . . .

The word “brief” is actually included in the definition for “short.” So we can agree that, according to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, “brief” and “short” are one and the same.

So let’s look at the definition for “statement,” this time from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

. . . something stated: such as . . . a single declaration or remark . . .

Again, Your Honour, we see the word “remark” is actually included in the definition of the word “statement.” So the phrase “short statement” is actually the same as “brief remark.” According to the very rules cited by Senator Gold remarks are allowed as per our Rules. Ergo, short statements are allowed and, to put Senator Gold’s mind at ease, quite defined in our rules.

I can appreciate that Senator Gold is concerned about having enough time during Question Period to answer all of our questions. Certainly when the day comes that the government leader actually starts answering our questions, he should absolutely have the proper time to do so. In that spirit, Senator Gold, while I do believe the Rules permit such a statement during Question Period, there is a simple remedy that would make that point moot altogether.

From Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure governing motions:

The Speaker may, before putting the question to the House, make such corrections as are necessary or advisable in order that it should conform with usages of the House.

It goes on to state that the motion can be “. . . so modified as to be no longer objectionable.” In this case, the motion can be so modified by simply changing the word “during” to “after” so that the motion reads that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate may be authorized to designate by making a short statement after any Question Period.

Finally, this same principle could also certainly apply, Your Honour, to what Senator Gold himself describes as a technical point. The absence of a clause stating that the process proposed is to apply notwithstanding other rules and practices of the Senate. Such a clause could easily be added to ensure conformity.

Your Honour, again, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me the proper time to research and respond to Senator Gold’s point of order. I respectfully ask you to allow my motion to proceed and dismiss this point of order.

Honourable senators, I rise today to support the position of my colleague Senator Housakos on this point of order.

I’d like to begin by addressing Senator Gold’s assertion that Senator Housakos’s motion is inconsistent with the Rules of the Senate, Senate traditions and Senate practices. In fact, it is not at all inconsistent with our rules, traditions or Senate practices for the Leader of the Opposition to have a special and distinct role in our parliamentary system. While some senators might wish it were otherwise, our parliamentary system is based on the Westminster model, one with particular and fundamental roles for the government and the official opposition.

This principle is enshrined in our very Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution indicates that Canada should have a government similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. This includes, of course, the traditional Westminster system which provides for a government and an opposition, along with prescribed procedural roles for the leaders of those two caucuses in the workings of Parliament.

Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Section 3 elaborates on that specific role of the opposition during Question Period stating:

Similarly the whole concept of the parliamentary Question Period depends on the tradition that the cabinet is willing to submit its conduct of public affairs to the scrutiny of the opposition on a regular basis.

It is not without precedent for the Leader of the Opposition to have a special role in choosing the direction of study for a Committee of the Whole. In fact, each year, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons selects the Main Estimates of two different departments or agencies for that chamber to review in Committee of the Whole. This is similar to giving the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate the ability to select a minister to invite to appear at a Committee of the Whole. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, whose role it is to hold the government to account, could also have a standing practice of determining the subject matter or department to be discussed in a similar Committee of the Whole context in the Senate.

Senator Gold asserts that, “Motion 26 is out of order because it would practically delegate to a single senator a right that is inherent in the Senate as a whole.” Honourable senators, in practice, in the last session of Parliament, it was the Leader of the Government in the Senate who selected and invited ministers to appear in ministerial Question Period in this chamber. Therefore, there is clear precedent for a single senator to shoulder this responsibility. Of course, the Leader of the Government in the Senate is the voice of the government here and has been appointed by the Prime Minister. This creates the potential for a conflict of interest in that government Senate leader choosing a minister for that questioning.

Given that the role of the opposition is to hold the government and its ministers accountable, it in fact makes such more sense for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to select the minister to be questioned in this chamber.

Honourable senators, with this point of order, the government is attempting to control the process by which ministers are made available to this chamber. I submit that is inappropriate. I’m concerned by the ongoing pattern of this government and by its attempts to undermine the rightful powers of the opposition in Parliament. The Trudeau government’s Senate leaders have hindered accountability for Canadians at every turn. Whether it was preventing Senate committees from studying controversial issues like federal loans to Bombardier, the SNC Lavalin scandal or the Mark Norman affair, this government has attempted to avoid any investigation or accountability. In his discussion paper, Senator Harder proposed removing opposition altogether from the Senate. And let’s not forget his beloved anti-democratic business committee.

Now they’re trying to control which ministers senators can question in this place, in this independent chamber, on fundamental issues facing Canadians.

Honourable senators, the Senate has the right to conduct its own business and, subject to certain restrictions, to change its rules as it deems necessary. If the Senate chooses to delegate its authority to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for one purpose or another, it is well within its rights to do so.

The opposition has an important and specific role to play in our parliamentary system and in our Senate Rules. We exist to keep the government accountable for the good of all Canadians. Senator Housakos’s motion is in accordance with that purpose. While Senator Gold might disagree with it, I submit that Senator Housakos’s motion should be found in order according to the Rules of the Senate, Senate traditions and Senate practices.

Honourable senators, I would like to draw your attention to three concerns with regard to the wording of the motion. The first relates to the discussion Senator Housakos referred to about someone being “invited” rather than “summoned” to appear. The first paragraph of the motion refers to inviting a minister to appear, while the last paragraph of the motion clearly states that if the designated minister is unable to attend on a particular Tuesday, the designated minister’s appearance will be postponed to the following Tuesday.

I would like to point out that the motion appears to invite someone but creates a system where the minister will be obligated to appear if they are unable to attend on the Tuesday when they were invited to appear. This could be considered a question of semantics, but in my opinion, the terms used in the Rules of the Senate are important.

Second, I want to make it clear that the official opposition in the Senate does not have a monopoly on demanding accountability from the government. The idea here seems to be to create a motion that leaves it up to the official opposition — the parliamentary group — to play one of the Senate’s roles and demand accountability from the government, even though any senator can play that role no matter which parliamentary group they belong to or whether they are affiliated or non-affiliated. I would like that issue to be examined.

The third point has to do with the wording chosen for the motion. It combines elements related to both question period and committee of the whole. When the point of order raised by the Government Representative is being examined, I would like some clarification on the application of rule 12-32 of the Rules of the Senate.

Under what circumstances and rules can a committee of the whole be constituted? At the same time, under the rules governing question period, which relate to rule 4, how is question period defined? How does it unfold? I would like you to help us understand the link between those two elements, and I would like your ruling to address them, since they were raised as though they are so flexible that there are no rules that apply to them, neither rules specific to question period nor rules specific to the constitution of a committee of the whole. Thank you.

I want to thank all honourable senators for their input in this somewhat highly technical point of order. I will take the matter under advisement.