Senator Plett: I hope I can ask another question. It’s not the first time I have been accused of being predictable, so I won’t take any exception to that now either.

Senator Cotter, I also noted that Minister Lametti was invited to appear a second time at committee to answer questions — indeed by members of the committee — as you began to consider the amendments at clause-by-clause consideration. The minister declined. It would seem, to me, that the minister would be happy to appear if he was invited by the committee in order to help with what ended up being quite a difficult process with quite a — I don’t want to use the word “convoluted” — difficult bill. Why would the minister not appear?

Senator Cotter: I don’t do mind reading very well, so I’m not able to say what motivated Minister Lametti — he did decline. It was the request of the committee, and we anticipated that it would be an opportunity to have a dialogue with respect to possible amendments that the committee might consider. We would have liked him to come before clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill — I don’t have an answer. I think it would have been slightly more helpful, and he may have given us a reason not to embrace these amendments, or to embrace them; I don’t know.

As you probably know, this is work that has been done over a number of years in trying to fashion a modern system that involves the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice. It is a delicate way of constructing a good, modern regime for judicial misconduct reviews.

I’m not offering a defence of Minister Lametti, but he has been terrific in terms of his attendance at the committee, and perhaps he felt that once per bill was enough.