Since Canada is a two-chamber country with an unelected Senate, I would say that the Senate doesn't have the same spirit of accountability. Things are different in Australia, for instance, where the Senate is an elected body. Proportionality prevails. The majority is never overly marked in the Senate. As a result, compromises, discussions and outcomes are not the same as they are here.
We have a committee that works really well and is never mentioned. I'm talking about the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. That committee, which brings the two houses together, studies regulations. It has the authority to recommend the revocation of regulations and can debate in the House on Wednesdays, between 1 p.m and 2 p.m.
Why doesn't that committee ever use that one-hour period? Because, when the brilliant staff of the Library of Parliament—who provide the committee with support—telephone department people to tell them that certain regulations are problematic and that the committee is planning to revoke them, most of the time, those regulations are amended or revoked by said department. That's the kind of influence the committee has. The fact that the committee can make a minister appear on the floor for an hour and explain why a given colorant is on the list when it shouldn't be, for instance, is sufficiently threatening.
In my opinion, that's the kind of mandate this committee should adopt. That mandate could eventually enable the committee—through recommendations—to influence the financial behaviour of the public service and the government.