Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2016

[Ian McCowan, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

As I think the minister indicated, the proposal was developed very much bearing in mind the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Senate reference case. A number of important markers were laid down there and that's very much a part of the framing of the proposals in question.

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

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You've spent two minutes and 43 seconds.

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

I don't want to take too much of Scott's time, because he's a good speaker.

We hear a lot that the Senate should be either elected or abolished. Do you see any value to having an elected Senate? For me, if you have an elected Senate, it has to assert its role and it has to assert its purpose, and therefore, it becomes a competition rather than a complement to the House of Commons. Do you agree with that view of the Senate?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I come from a place where the democratic institutions that we have here are dreamed of, are longed for. While what we have is great, it could be so much better and while we will be bringing about various reforms, there are some core foundational aspects of our current system that we would do well to maintain, including that particular role the Senate plays as a body to provide that independent sober second thought without having to worry about the next election.

I want to talk about ordinary people being part of this process, because I think that's very important. Ordinary people may not have the appetite that we do to find the means and the courage to run for public office. How many people applied for the job that you and I have? Not very many people find compelling the process of going through a campaign. We're going to open it up to all Canadians so that even those who do not find it exciting to run for an elected position may be included in this process.

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

Thank you for your leadership on this.

I'll give it over to Scott.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Minister. It's good to see you again.

Every time we engage in this argument, we always come around to the names of the people who are, I'll say, at the base degrees, according to their behaviour, being said in this place.

I'm not looking directly at you, sir. I'm just waxing on metaphorically. You just happen to be in the line of sight.

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

I am just wondering where this is going.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

We know the names that were already brought up, the Brazeaus of the world, the Mac Harbs of the world, these people.

Let's take a moment and talk about the people who have done really good stuff. Let's talk about, as the minister pointed out, Roméo Dallaire. Let's talk about Hugh Segal, who has done tremendous work. Let's talk about Michael Kirby, whose reports on health have been cited in institutions across this country, all of them. They started out as ordinary, David. They started out as ordinary people who did extraordinary work, and continue to do extraordinary work in all these places.

What I would say to people.... This process is something that goes that way.

In the last election—I'll get to my question—we had three options on the table, one of which we are talking about here right now. Another one included an election of the Senate, and the third required abolishing.

Now, in April 2014, the Supreme Court was quite clear as to what you desired. The opposition never reached out to any of the provinces to either elect it or abolish it, not one. It became a Twitter campaign with #disingenuous. I am a little upset about this, because I thought the whole thing was disingenuous. The plan was not thought out right.

This plan.... I'll get to my question now. When it came out that we would do this appointment process, there were a lot of people who criticized us and said, but you too need to open up the constitution in order to do this process. However, that is not the case, is it, Minister?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 15 seconds, Minister.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

No, it is not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's close enough.

We'll now go on to Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I appreciate your being here today. I am glad that you were able to make this a priority in your schedule, to be at this committee, finally.

I'll start with a question. I assume you would agree with the statement that the ability of Canadians to cast their vote and to have their voices heard in an election is an important part of democracy.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Is that your question?

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

I assume you would agree with that statement.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I think more Canadians should be voting.

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

Okay, great. I am glad to hear that you think that's an important value in our democracy because 309,587 Albertans had a chance to cast their vote for a man named Mike Shaikh, in Alberta, to be their senator when the next Senate vacancy comes up. This follows in a long history. In 1989, Stan Waters was elected by the people of Alberta, and appointed to the Senate in 1990.

Then, in 1998, Bert Brown and Ted Morton were chosen by Albertans but unfortunately ignored by the Liberal governments of the day. Then, in 2004, we had Bert Brown, who was elected and then appointed to the Senate in 2007, and then Betty Unger, who was appointed in 2012. In 2012, we had another senatorial selection process in Alberta, and the winner of that process was Doug Black, who was appointed in 2013. Then, Scott Tannas was appointed later in 2013.

The next vacancy that appears in the Senate for Alberta should be filled by Mike Shaikh. As I said, he was elected by over 309,000 Albertans, which, I would point out, is more votes than all the members of this committee, combined, received in the last election.

We have certainly heard—in your indication at the Senate committee, and when I asked your parliamentary secretary in the House of Commons—that somehow there is a belief that this isn't merit-based.

I would have to ask, how do you not see 300,000 Albertans choosing someone to be their senator, in a legitimate senatorial selection process, as merit-based? How is it that you could tell Albertans, those 309,000 people who voted for Mike Shaikh, that their opinions aren't based on merit, that their vote for him isn't merit-based? I just don't understand that.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Let's start with first premise, that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else in this room has the constitutional prerogative that the Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on whom to consider for the Senate positions. That is the first place that we are going to come from.

Second, I am sure Mr. Shaikh is an exceptional Canadian who has contributed to the province of Alberta in extraordinary ways, and I congratulate him. The next opening, the vacancy for Alberta, is going to be in 2018, I believe. The process that we have introduced will allow for any Canadians, ordinary Canadians who have done extraordinary things in their lives, to put their name forward for consideration for the Senate.

This means that people who do not have the means to engage in what can be an expensive election campaign are included in this process. This means that individuals who may not have the desire that you and I had to knock on doors to get elected are included in this process.

We are opening up this process to all Canadians in just a matter of weeks. I look forward to Mr. Shaikh and anyone else from Alberta putting their name forward for consideration by the advisory board and the Prime Minister.

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

I appreciate the answer, but it isn't about Mike Shaikh; it's about Albertans. It's about their choice. It's about their right to democratically select the people they've chosen. That's something that's been respected by past prime ministers. It's really unfortunate that this current Prime Minister will not be respecting that.

Let me move on, though, because I don't sense I'll get a different response about the idea of the importance of democratic election and the disrespecting of Albertans.

You mentioned in your opening remarks about Ontario and Quebec, that you've had a list of names come forward. You didn't mention Manitoba, which is also, of course, on there. Obviously, their government indicated that they weren't interested in being a part of the process. I guess I want to ask two things. First of all, how were the two advisory board members for Manitoba selected, given that Manitoba was not interested in being a part of the process? Also, have you received a list from Manitoba and, if not, when do we expect to receive that list? Why the delay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just give a brief answer, Minister.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I had very productive and positive conversations with my colleagues in Manitoba, and I understand and respect their reasons for not being able to participate in the transitional phase, but I do look forward to working with them on this file and other files moving forward.

As we indicated at the outset of this process, in the event that a province or territory was not able to participate in the appointment of ad hoc members to the board, we would proceed to appoint individuals, and we did. We found two exceptional Manitobans, and these two incredible women are serving their province well. We're pleased to hear from the leadership in Manitoba that they approve of the choice as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now move on to Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Minister Monsef, for coming before this committee. I also want to thank you for your hard work and dedication to improving Canadians' confidence in our democratic institutions.

Before I begin with my questions, I noted that you didn't get a chance to answer the question from my colleague Mr. Simms about the Constitution. So, if you wish, I can give you a few moments to answer that question before I begin with mine.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

We are confident that this process respects the constitutional framework. In fact, I would like to assure everyone in this room and those watching this that all our decisions as a government are guided by the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We respect our democratic institutions, including the Supreme Court of Canada. It's refreshing to see that we are all on the same page.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to talk a little bit about how you view this process improving the way the Senate functions in its committees and improving the collegiality, independence, and non-partisanship of the Senate. As we know, traditionally the Senate has always been viewed as being more collegial, and senators do not always wear their political party hat. In recent years that's diminished somewhat.

But this is a process that has never before been seen in terms of selecting senators. Already the Prime Minister has made Liberal senators independent and not subject to party discipline. With the new senators coming in, who will also be independent, not subject to party discipline, and not appointed solely at the discretion of the Prime Minister without consultation, how do you see that improving and elevating the tone of the debate in the Senate?