Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2016

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

Thank you so much, Dr. Samarasekera, for appearing before us. I know that it's still relatively early in the morning Vancouver time, so we appreciate your making yourself available.

I wanted to start with something that in some way obviously reflects a little about your background.

In looking at your curriculum vitae, clearly you have a very significant period of public service, particularly through your record with the universities. But I wanted to get a sense when you talked about issues around competency and knowledge.

Given that you've been appointed to an advisory board that deals with the appointment of future public officials, do you have any views or any experience in particular with respect to constitutional matters in your past dealings?

As a university president did you deal with elements of the division of powers? Do you have any particular thoughts on a bicameral parliament that operates between a combination of members who are elected, those of us in the House of Commons, and those who are appointed, the ones you will be advising on, making recommendations to appoint future senators?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

I'm obviously not an expert on any of this, but in my role as president and vice-chancellor I have had to develop a really good understanding of how the Government of Canada works.

I have spent a great deal of time in Ottawa interacting with members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, deputy ministers, and public service officials. I've also had the opportunity to interact with many senators.

Through that work I have developed a sophisticated understanding of bicameral governance and also a good understanding of the division of powers between the elected members of Parliament and the Senate.

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

I note that you've served in many distinguished academic and professional capacities in the past. Of course, in addition to earning a number of degrees, I note that you've been awarded a significant number of honorary distinctions and various public service distinction awards throughout your career.

From any of your boards and committee work perhaps, did that in any way help inform you with respect to the type of work you would be doing on behalf of this advisory body? I also want to get a sense of your relationship with the government. Was there any particular understanding that you had with respect to the kind of advice you would ultimately be providing to the minister or to the Prime Minister, in terms of the kinds of recommendations that would be going forward?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

Let me begin by saying that in terms of competencies to undertake this task, as you know, I've spent all my life in the business of talent—management talent assessment—and I've served on a large number of committees that select people for various awards, from an academic standpoint.

But let me speak to two that are not academic, that perhaps have the greatest bearing on this particular task. One is that as president and vice-chancellor for 10 years, I served on the honorary degree committee for the University of Alberta. The chair of the committee is the chancellor, and I'm the vice-chancellor. As you know, honorary degrees are awarded to individuals from all walks of life.

In fact, the criteria that we apply to honorary degree selection mirrors, in some ways, the task at hand. We are seeking members who have made significant contributions to their community, who have made outstanding achievements in their chosen professions. Perhaps the only thing that was missing in terms of direct comparison is knowledge of the legislative process and their ability to function in the Senate. The honorary degree committee allowed me to look at Canadians from all walks of life. That's one experience.

The other one is that I also serve on the selection for the outstanding CEO of the year in Canada. I've been on that committee for about four or five years. That again is looking at very specific competencies—individuals who are running Canadian corporations. I think these diverse experiences have given me a context within which I will be able to assess and apply the very clear merit-based criteria that we have to adhere to.

In terms of my understanding, you asked a question with government in terms of our recommendations. Our terms of reference are very clear. The criteria are very clear. We, as a committee, have spent a lot of time discussing the criteria and developing an understanding of those criteria and their application to nominations that we receive.

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

I go back into your CV, and particularly I noted that you were appointed by the previous government to the Prime Minister's advisory committee on public service renewal.

Was there anything you found in that particular work that might be informative to the type of work you might be doing on behalf of this advisory body?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

I would say not directly, other than developing a very good understanding of the role of the public service in Canada; a good understanding of the long-term trends that Canada is facing as a country; and the importance of modernizing, perhaps many of our systems in support of government—everything from how we assess merit and so on in terms of public servants.

I would say I got a broad-based understanding and an opportunity to perhaps delve more deeply into how the Government of Canada operates and the role of the public service.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

We'll now have Mr. Scott Reid.

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

First of all, welcome, Professor, or Doctor. I'm not sure what the right term to use is. If this was Germany, I'd call you “Herr Professor Doctor”, and get both in the same title.

You have an impressive CV, to say the least. I've been saying to other people who've appeared before us that it must feel a bit odd having to trot out your credentials. I know that being accomplished is not the same thing as wanting to spend all your time talking about your credentials. I'll just say that from my point of view they're very impressive. In fact, my assistant was a student at the University of Alberta while you were the big kahuna there, the president.

Let me ask you a bit about some of what you've done and how it relates to the work you do now on the advisory panel. One of the things I'm trying to get my head around is whether you have been approaching individuals or organizations and asking them to make nominations. I see that Sylvie Bernier from Quebec indicated that about 100 organizations have been approached. Is that something that the national board has been involved in, or is that something done by the provincial members only?

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

I have a point of order.

We're getting back into issues of process as opposed to issues of competency and qualifications.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you want to answer the question?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

I'm happy to reinforce what our chair offered and to add to it. One of the things we were trying to do in phase one was to ensure that we got the word out very broadly. Hence, as a group—the three federal members and all of the provincial members, which are three provinces and two people each—we worked together to direct our input towards a significant list meant to ensure that the message and opportunity to nominate individuals went out everywhere. That was our commitment, and I think we did the best job we could. In fact, I think when our report goes to the Prime Minister, we will attempt to provide some details and colour on that part of our activity.

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

Do you mean the report you'll be making, the recommendations of five individuals per province, or do you mean the report you'll be making about how the process could be improved in the future?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

I mean the report on the process.

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

Did you then send out requests to organizations asking them to consider making nominations?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

Yes, we sent out the same request to a large number of organizations.

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

Will you be including a copy of that request in your report, so as to allow members of the public to see what its nature was? It would be helpful for all of us. I realize that you were reporting to the Prime Minister, but this is a process that involves all of us. These senators will be governing for all of us. Therefore, we all, as members of the public, have an interest in keeping track of the process.

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

I want to object again. We're delving into the issues of process, Mr. Reid.

I leave it up to the witness to decide whether she wishes to answer the question, but we have the Ministerappearing before this committee on Thursday. Perhaps those are questions more appropriately addressed to the government, as opposed to this witness.

I want us to remember that we are directed under Standing Order 111(2) to simply look at the qualifications and competency of a particular witness without delving into issues of process.

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

I'll make two points. First of all, we are currently working on our report, so I can't speak to it, because it's by no means complete. But let me point to the website and the form that the organizations were asked to fill out. Perhaps that form will give you a better understanding. We've clearly said that the organizations have to present a rationale for why they are nominating the individual, a rationale that spells out the parameters we provided to the organizations.

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

Would the number of organizations that got back to you be something you would be able to share with us at this point? If not—I'm anticipating Mr. Chan's objection—is an indication of the number of responses you actually got back the sort of thing you intend to include in your report to the Prime Minister?

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

I will simply repeat my objection again.

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

Our report is not complete so it's difficult for me to comment, because I don't know what we will collectively end up with, but let me say that our obligation according to the terms of reference is to provide statistics to the Prime Minister. Beyond that, I think it's too early for me to make any kind of commentary until we as a group have met and decided what we're going to do.

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

That's fair enough. I don't expect you to anticipate the things you're going to write, particularly as you would want to discuss them with the other members of your panel before putting them to paper.

Might I make a suggestion? I'm offering you advice that I think is not out of order, even to Mr. Chan's mind. Providing that information on how many groups actually got back to you would be helpful. I think you can do that without violating the restrictions that are placed on those individual forms that become protected status B after they have been filled out and so on. That would be useful information that would indicate whether the system is working as one would wish it to work.

In his testimony before the Senate committee about a week and a half ago, Mr. LeBlanc indicated that you had indicated to him that you needed extra time to make your decisions and to pass on the names to the Prime Minister. Have you been able to pass those names on to the Prime Minister now? Is the matter in his hands, or is it still something you're reviewing?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Once again, on a point of order, we're asking about process over and over again, and that does not go to the qualifications or competence of the witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have about 20 seconds left. Is there anything you want to say in relation to that question?

[Dr. Indira Samarasekera]

At this point I can say our process is well under way. Until the process is concluded, it might be best if I left that answer until we can finally give you some sense of timing.