Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Okay. I withdraw the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're past noon, but if the witness would indulge us, we had a few points of order that took up some time, and we have one round left of three minutes if you wanted to ask any questions, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Oh, absolutely. We'll give it a second shot.

I'd just like to remind our witness that his chair answered all my questions. She had no problem. She didn't try to hide behind anything. She just answered as best she could. I accepted that. That's all I was looking for.

I want to come back again and try the same kind of question on a different matter, because the chair will rule me out of order if I don't. It is on the issue of the primacy of the House of Commons. Now, under the Constitution, on which you're an expert and know more about than most of us, there are certain rights that are bestowed on each House. The current practice has been, since 1867, that the Senate, with very, very few exceptions, is very careful not to thwart the will of the elected chamber, recognizing in deference the fact that we are elected and have that mandate.

Now, we did have a circumstance whereby Jack Layton, the former leader of the NDP, brought forward his environmental bill of rights, which I believe passed the House of Commons twice. It was sent to the Senate and without any debate, they killed it.

My question for you would be, when you're interviewing someone, what are you looking for from them in terms of how they see the division of power between the House and the Senate? Would you be wanting to hear that they would exercise a deference to the elected House, or would you be looking to hear from someone who says no, that if they're appointed, they will exercise every single constitutional right that a senator has?

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

I think this is again a question that goes to process and a question that goes to the qualifications of individuals who will be appointed as senators rather than the qualifications of members, but let me try to answer it that way. The mandate of.... I'm sorry if I'm making you unhappy with my answers. I'm doing my best to address them within the mandate of the committee on which you sit.

Let me say this. The criteria that have been provided to us, the criteria that we work with, require us to assess very carefully the ways in which people meet the basic knowledge qualifications. I would say that those knowledge qualifications include not just the written mandate of the Senate, but also a sound understanding of its place in the constitutional order of Canada, and I think one would expect that it gets manifested in the way in which people describe their own profile, their own career, and their own expectations of the contributions that they might make in the Senate if they were selected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 30 seconds.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have another question. When you were doing your research, which was very impressive, did you do some research into the question of accountability and how senators should be more accountable? Did you study the aspect of a deference to the House of Commons out of respect to the Canadian people, who voted for the House of Commons? Did you research that, sir?

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

As I said at the outset, this is not an area of scholarship for me. I have not published on the Senate. Indeed, I don't think you will find anything under my signature that would address the kinds of questions you're raising.

That being said, I'm quite familiar with the concerns you express, because those figure prominently in all of the scholarship that I was reading in preparation for my work as amicus curiae before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Senate reference. I'm quite familiar with those questions, indeed, although I have not published on them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Could I just—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have no more questions—my time is up—but I just want to say, though, that I find it totally unacceptable. You sense my frustration. It's not acceptable for you to say that's what we're going to look for in the candidates. You're the one who is replacing the Canadian people's judgment, and you're deciding whether they have the qualifications or not, and your refusal to tell me what template you're going to use—

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Christopherson is clearly out of—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—further makes a mockery of an unelected Senate.

Thank you, Chair.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I think we should thank the witness. If Mr. Christopherson wants to continue this conversation with the committee after the witness has been dismissed, I'm willing to entertain him ad nauseam, but again I think we're done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I would like to thank the witness for coming. You're one of our first ones on this. We certainly appreciate your qualifications and your taking the time today to answer questions.

Good luck in your work.

[Daniel Jutras]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll suspend while we change the chair and then go on to committee business.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I will call the meeting back to order. We are still televised and in public of course.

We have a couple of motions to deal with. I will point out that the clerk does have a budget for the one brief study. I believe it's in relation to the advisory board. We've had a couple of meetings and one more that is planned.

My intention is that we would quickly move in camera at the very tail end of the meeting with just a few minutes to go, and we can deal with the budget. I think it can be dealt with fairly expeditiously. That would be my intention, unless the committee would like to direct me otherwise. We'd go quickly in camera to deal with the budget, so that we can do that. We would do that five or six minutes before the end of the meeting and make sure we're finished right on time. I know that members have other meetings to get to, and we have to make sure we wrap up right on time.

Having said that, I'm letting you all know what I expect to do and when. We have a motion that has been put before the committee. There have been some amendments suggested, and the debate when we were last on it was on those amendments.

You've all received it; it's been passed around. The track changes that show the proposed amendments have been passed around. I would entertain a speakers list on that debate.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I had a motion as well that I wanted to introduce relating to today's subject matter.

I'm hoping that the mover of the motion, Mr. Christopherson, will indulge me in suggesting that I move this motion first. I can't imagine that it would not be a matter of consensus and easily dealt with.

It relates, of course, to bringing back the witnesses to deal with the substance that was not permissible under the standing order governing our meeting today, specifically Standing Order 111(2).

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Okay, you have a motion you'd like to move.

I can add you as my first speaker. If you'd like to move the motion, you're more than able to do that.

The clerk has asked that if you do so, please read it slowly for us so that we can make sure it gets recorded.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Certainly. I'll actually give you the text of the motion, because I have it written out.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you.

The floor is yours.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I guess my answer is that I'm first on the speakers list. Taking advantage of that, whereas members of the Senate advisory board have been, by reason of a provision of Standing Order 111(2), unable to answer questions relating to the administration of their responsibilities, I move:

That the federal members of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments

—that is to distinguish them from the provincial members—

be invited to appear before the Committee before the end of March 2016, to answer all questions relating to their mandate and responsibilities.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Mr. Reid. The motion has been duly received.

We can proceed to debate on that motion if it's Mr. Christopherson's wish, because it would forgo his.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I'm fine deferring my motion to allow this motion to come before it. Then we can jump back to my motion.