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

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I did.

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

It's peachy that you agree. That's swell, but irrelevant. You just called a point of order, Mr. Chair. That's for us to do. It's not for you to start calling points of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Chan, do you call that a point of order?

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

I'll call that a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, let Mr. Chan and others call the points of order. Let's not have you doing that.

Larry, I think you're an awesome guy, but you're not being an awesome chair. You're not being impartial at all. You've got to get back to being impartial. That's your job.

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

I was actually about to say that I don't think that last question was actually relevant either. To be fair, I'm calling a point of order on my own side here because I actually think it goes beyond the mandate of our examination.

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

Arnold, I believe you believe that, and it may very well be that you were about to press the button, but you hadn't done it yet, and that goes to our Chair being impartial at all times, which is not what's happening right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The Chair gets to rule on various things, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm ready to pass on to Ms. Sahota. if she'd like.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Professor Jutras, thank you so much for being with us here today.

I'd like to go back to your appointment as amicus curiae to the Supreme Court and your experiences. Could you talk about something particular that you learned from that argument and what you bring from that to this appointment to the independent advisory board?

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

As you know, the reference to the Supreme Court that I participated in was primarily a reference about the amendment process under part V of the Constitution Act, determining the level of provincial support that had to occur under our Constitution in order for certain amendments to the Constitution to be made, particularly amendments that relate to the structure of the Senate, all the way to the issue of the abolition of the Senate.

As I've said in another setting, it would be fair to say that it was more a reference about the constitutional amendment process than a reference about the Senate itself. The Supreme Court was not charged with the mandate or responsibility to assess various proposals for Senate reform, but asked under the reference to determine what processes for amendment needed to take place.

That was really the focus of the work that I did as amicus curiae, focusing on the structure of the Constitution Act and the provisions for amendment of the Constitution that we are working with.

Nonetheless, it's fair to say that in understanding the kinds of issues that are likely to have arisen in that conversation, I had to become quite familiar with the historical record with respect to constitutional amendments on the Senate. Part of that obviously involves consideration of a variety of concerns expressed about the Senate, it's current configuration and possible transformations for the future.

The thing that I might bring that might be relevant to an understanding of qualifications of individuals that would be appropriate senators, the understanding that I bring is this understanding that's based on having read very widely on the role of the Senate and on its position within our constitutional architecture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I appreciate your being here today. Conducting what's essentially a job interview after the fact and in public is probably an awkward situation. We appreciate your putting yourself through that.

Obviously, we've heard your qualifications. I think I would be able to speak for everyone in this room when I say we are quite impressed with your background and experience you have.

One thing I always find helpful in assessing someone is what they would do in certain situations. I like to put people through scenarios or situations, and ask what they would do. Given the fact that this process is already well under way, there is going to be some element where I can't really ask you what would or should you do. It's going to be what have you done because it's already well under way.

There are a couple of different aspects of the job that I see as quite important and that I'd like to get an assessment of your thoughts on. The first one is that we have two stages to this process. There's this first stage, a transitional process I guess we're calling it, and then there's going to be a transition into a permanent process.

When there are enhancements being made, which is what's been indicated on the Democratic Institutions website, to that process when it becomes permanent I would assume that in your role on the board you will have some opportunity to make recommendations or suggestions about what those enhancements would be.

I wonder if you could give some indication as to what are some of the flaws or challenges that you've seen in the process you've been undertaking up to this point, and what you think would be good changes to be made to that process going forward. It helps us to assess your ability to make those kinds of suggestions and recommendations.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think it's going to process once again and not to the competence of the witness or his qualifications.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's the way they were.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It is. I should take that word “think” out completely, as in it does not follow the mandate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You can judge.... We've been through this enough today. You can judge it, Mr. Jutras. Go ahead.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

I think I'll confine myself to saying it's probably premature for me to answer that question. The process is still ongoing. There will be a report to the Prime Minister under our terms of reference that will assess the process and identify some of the possible improvements, but I don't think I can identify them now. We haven't had that conversation as a board, and I would prefer to wait until that's done before addressing that issue.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay. I'll respect that.

You had mentioned, I think, in response to an earlier question—I believe it was from Mr. Reid—that the report you would be giving as a board about those recommendations would be made public, so we will have some idea as to the enhancements the board is suggesting, and we'll know in public.

Can you confirm that you will be making that report public?

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

That is my understanding. I think that is explicit in our terms of reference under article 13(3). The report must be made public under those terms of reference.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Maybe we'll move to another area that I think is fairly important. There's this idea of consultations that will take place with various groups in the transitional process, and I'll quote from it. It “could include groups which represent”, and then it has a variety of different groups it could represent. Then it indicates that would be to ensure that “a diverse slate of individuals, with a variety of backgrounds, skills, knowledge” are brought forward.

I'm trying to get a sense of your previous experience in undertaking those types of consultations with organizations. It's a difficult situation because you have already undertaken some of the process here. I want to ask a bit about what you would or should do, but in some cases I'm going to be asking what you have done because it's already under way.

How have those consultations been undertaken? How should they be undertaken? I'll ask both, I guess.

Have groups been approached, or have they been required to apply? Based on what criteria have those groups been chosen and should those groups be chosen? How would the board interact, or has the board interacted with those groups? In your view should those groups that are participating be made public?

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

Again, Mr. Chair, I'll leave it to the discretion of the witness, but I think the latter part of Mr. Blake's question again drifts back into current processes as opposed to.... I was fine when we were talking about previous experience, and I think that goes to the examination of the competency and qualifications, and I'll leave it to the witness to decide if he wishes to respond.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Chair, it's quite clear I'm trying to ask what should be done, but obviously the processes are under way, and that's a reality. We can't ignore the reality that's under way. So to ask what should be done, I have to ask what has been done, because it speaks to what's the reality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Jutras.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

I don't think I want to answer detailed questions about what should be done for reasons that I outlined in my previous response to you. I think that assessment needs to take place once we're done with this particular transitional phase, and it's too early to address this.

I think it would be preferable given our terms of reference if the different interlocutors were addressed in the appropriate sequence. The terms of reference require us to report to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, I assume, under the terms of reference will make that report public. And I assume that given our terms of reference, the report will highlight every dimension that may be relevant in terms of making recommendations for improvement.