Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Plett’s amendment to Senator Gold’s motion to have the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs study the subject matter of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

The second paragraph of the motion would authorize the committee:

 . . . to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;

Senator Plett’s amendment deletes this paragraph from the motion, effectively significantly reducing opportunities for the committee to meet for the purposes of this study, as it would be unable to do so during Senate sittings.

At the end of the session, when committees are overloaded and senators’ schedules are difficult to coordinate, greater flexibility is crucial. More leeway will enable the committee to organize itself more efficiently in order to complete its work in spite of tight deadlines and time constraints.

That said, I’d also like to endorse Senator Harder’s caution about expanding the practice of conducting pre-studies on certain bills. Pre-studies are sometimes necessary and justified, particularly in the case of budget bills, appropriation bills or bills subject to judicial deadlines. These bills have special status under our parliamentary practices and customs, and require a certain deference on the part of the Senate.

When assessing the need to conduct a pre-study of a bill that does not fall into these categories, we should also consider the criterion of time constraint. Is there any justification for the time constraint imposed on the Senate to study this bill?

Extending this practice is not necessarily consistent with the Senate’s traditional role in exercising its objective second look at legislation. The Senate must be able to take the time it needs, when appropriate.

I, too, would like to caution the government and colleagues about changing practices and customs that would diminish the breadth and depth of our committees’ studies of bills we receive from the other place.

I believe that Senator Plett’s proposed amendment is unnecessary at this time, because I trust that our fellow senators will make the right decision when they vote on the original motion.

Thank you for your attention.