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

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's possible for me to answer in a manner that connects the question to competence and qualification in the following way.

This is a demanding task, as I think members of the committee will understand. People who sit on the advisory board must have stamina, energy, and the ability to work promptly. I think my career until now demonstrates that I'm able to manage a very intense workload and to work as promptly as possible in the achievement of the mandates that I've been given.

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

I actually did not mean that question, Professor Jutras, to suggest that you're incapable of moving quickly on issues. That was not the intent of the question. It was to determine when you expected to get back to the Prime Minister with your recommendations.

Do you feel that you're able to answer that question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You don't have to.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

Indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure that it relates to the mandate of your particular committee. I can say that we're working as promptly as we can and will report in due course, having done due diligence in every respect.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, in the event that you continue to rule out of order questions that are germane to what's going on, what I'll do is, at the end of this witness's testimony, I'll be presenting a motion to invite him and the other members of the committee back to discuss these very issues that you keep on ruling out of order, because they are important. I'm just giving you notice of that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's fine.

The committee has no choice. It cannot change its mandate for this particular meeting so much beyond that.

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

No, but there is an overly restrictive interpretation, which I notice is being applied very aggressively to Conservative members that has not been applied to government members on this same matter. It's quite striking, Mr. Chair.

To the witness, you were the private secretary of the Chief Justice. I believe that she also chairs the committee that makes decisions regarding the Order of Canada. Were you involved in any way in that? I'm not asking you to get into the mechanics, but I'm just asking if you were involved in that.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

No, not at all. This is one mandate that she performs on her own.

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

Thank you.

You mentioned that you had been involved as an amicus curiae with regard to the reference case. Was that on behalf of an organization or on your own behalf?

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

The amicus curiae is appointed by the Supreme Court, so I was not advocating on behalf of any organization. I was asked by the Supreme Court, along with co-counsel Mr. John Hunter from British Columbia, to present a brief and oral argument in addition to all of the briefs and oral arguments the court was receiving from a variety of attorneys general as well as intervenors in the Supreme Court.

The appointment came from the Supreme Court itself.

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

You have mentioned at some length your ability to understand—you didn't put it quite this way but.... The concept of discretion is actually one that requires some degree of subtle knowledge to understand what it means and where its parameters are located, and I think that's what you were trying to point out.

Keeping that in mind, I'd like to ask you if some of the proceedings you're engaged in on the committee you're involved in cause you to face rules regarding discretion and what you can disclose in the future.

Would you regard that as including the number of nominations that occurred in each province during the phase one process? That is to say, would you say that you will not in the future be able to disclose how many nominations you received—not anything else—in each of the three provinces?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Once again, that's a process question.

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

No, Mr. Chair, you are wrong. That is going to a matter that the witness himself raised. He therefore is required to respond to this question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

He's not required to because it's process, but he can if he wants to.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

I think I will simply refer you back to article 13 of our terms of reference, which require the committee within three months of submitting names of qualified candidates to the Prime Minister, in the transitional process as well as in subsequent processes, to provide a report then in both official languages, a public report, that will be given to the Prime Minister that will contain information on the process, including the execution of the terms of reference, the cost relating to the advisory board's activities, and more pointedly, statistics relating to the applications received.

We have not written that report at this point, but I think it's fair to say that we will need to ascertain the level of disclosure that will be required in that context.

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

Thank you.

In the same regard, then, would you regard this as.... This is a matter that the minister was asked about, although I think after you stopped watching. It's the names of nominating groups. It's not the names of people who were submitting their applications. That clearly is intended to be confidential, but the names of nominating groups is a matter that I do not think is stated in your mandate as being confidential. Indeed, I think that when your mandate was written, the phase one process hadn't actually been dreamed up yet.

Would you be willing to include that in your information in your report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 10 seconds.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

I'm sorry. I missed the last intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I said that you have 10 seconds.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

Ten seconds?

Again, Mr. Reid, I would refer you back to the terms of reference and suggest that I don't think it's appropriate for me at this point to indicate in some detail what will be in that report before it's even written. I think it remains to be done at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

The next questioner will be David Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Professor, for being here today. I appreciate it.

For the purposes of full disclosure, you probably know that my party and I don't have a lot of use for the Senate. We would just as soon see the thing disappear and be gone; however, that's not the view that's prevailing right now.

What I want to ask you is very similar to the questions I asked your colleague the last time. I accept your qualifications. Quite frankly, given that any Canadian can be appointed, I think that just about any Canadian can be on a board that approves those Canadians, so I have no problem with your qualifications. Certainly, from a professional point of view, if what's wanted is a 100% professional person, I accept that you're that person.

I do want to speak to the issue of competency, and I want to approach it this way. One of the things about a democracy is accountability. We on the House side have accountability built in every weekend when we're in our ridings, and certainly every four years in elections. It's not so in the Senate, but given the fact that accountability is an important trait of a modern democracy, what sorts of traits would you be looking for in candidates so that they would understand the importance of accountability? That would be part of their role. It's not just to be lawmakers, but to be accountable for what they're doing.

When you're interviewing people and making these decisions, what sorts of traits are you looking for in them that would give you the assurance that they understand that accountability is an important part of our Parliament, on both sides?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead. You can talk about your traits and ability to do that, or whatever you want.

[Prof. Daniel Jutras]

I confess that I think that question is also slightly outside of the mandate of the committee, unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of what the topic of our conversation is today. I'm not sure I understand how your question relates to my qualifications and competence. Could you clarify that for me?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sure. You're the one who's going to be making decisions about people and whether they're in front of you. One of the things that I assume you're going to want to do is satisfy yourself that they can do the work and that they have the stamina to handle what can be a busy workload.

I'm suggesting that an important trait that Canadians want in senators is that they understand that accountability is part of being a parliamentarian. “Parliamentarian” covers both sides of Parliament, both Houses, so what I'm asking is, what are you looking for when you're interviewing someone to satisfy yourself that they understand the importance of accountability?