Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, the Constitution can be a very difficult thing to have to listen to, I suppose, every once in a while, but people who are a lot smarter than us drafted the Constitution and I suppose there are reasons why they have a bicameral system. While we're not always proud of the different bodies, we should be proud of the system we have, because it has served us very well for a long time. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.
Just to recap, of course there are a number of accountability measures that the Senate has brought forward. We know that the Auditor General is currently undertaking a review of all Senate expenses. We also know that the government has put forward some recommendations to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to helping us along the lines of a proper road map so that we can reform the Senate. I know there was a lot of debate on that last week in front of the Senate. Some of the provinces are discussing that. The government is discussing that. Canadians obviously are talking a lot more about the Senate than they probably have in the past.
I would agree that we have to improve the Senate and we have to have more accountability measures in the Senate. I don't disagree with that.
With respect to the motion, Mr. Chair, I think there are a number of problems with this motion. My understanding is that the President of the Treasury Board would more logically appear before the government operations and estimates committee, of which you were previously the chair, and that he would appear on the main estimates, so this particular motion seems to be a little outside the mandate of this committee.
You also highlighted a couple of the problems with the motion as it has been put forward. I think the members themselves, as they're talking about why they want to bring this motion forward, also highlight some of the problems with the way the motion is actually worded. The top part is about the main estimates. The bottom part becomes about a study. Then we need some concurrence from the House of Commons. All this has to be done by December 5.
I think there are a lot of dilemmas with respect to this motion, again, not the least of which is the fact that it falls outside the mandate of the committee. I think the appropriate place for the minister would be in front of the government operations and estimates committee and not in front of this committee.
We do have a fairly robust agenda that we are trying to deal with, when it comes to the review of the Conflict of Interest Act and a number of studies that other members have talked about, Mr. Chair. Certainly the way the motion is worded, the inconsistencies of it, has been highlighted by you, Mr. Chair, and some of the speakers. For those reasons, right now I don't think this falls within our mandate, and it's something we should leave with the government operations and estimates committee.
I do have a couple of other concerns which I think would best be expressed in camera, Mr. Chair, so I move that we go in camera.