Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Minister, it's up to you whether you want to respond. You were only called here on the Senate. It's fair if you only want to answer on that.

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

It's just like old times, Mr. Chair.

Let me go back to your earlier comments. From what I understand, the advisory board members were asked to appear before this committee so that you could assess their qualifications to determine whether or not they were the right people to be leading this process. I hope that, to that end, your questions and curiosity have been satisfied.

Your committee is the master of its own destiny, but rest assured that one of the aspects around transparency and openness within this process is the fact that there will be a report, which will include the answers to the questions that we all have about how this process went. Let's wait for that report.

As for the familiar question you've asked, as I have shared in the House, with the media, and during our one-on-one conversations, the process will engage Canadians in a meaningful and inclusive conversation about how we may enhance our electoral system so that those who are not currently engaged feel that they have a voice and that they have a place within this place and within the decisions that we make as a government. It is too early to prejudge the outcome of that process—

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

What I'm asking you is, what criteria will you use when it is no longer too early? At some point it won't be too early, but none of us know what the criteria are that you will be using. It's hard, given the fact the Chief Electoral Officer has just prepared a report, released I believe it was yesterday or the day before, stating he will need extra time to deal with the referendum process. He'll also need extra time to deal with any electoral boundary redistribution that might occur as a result of this process.

Effectively as you take more time, you start precluding options. It's not hard to design a system so that only one option is left, which just happens to be the one your Prime Minister has indicated he prefers.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Point of order....

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

My concern is that we get an answer as to what your criteria would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Before you do the point of order, the time is up, so maybe it's not necessary.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I still think it's necessary to have a ruling on that point of order I made previously. If we continue in this fashion the time is going to be up pretty soon, and we're not going to get to the relevant matter we've called the minister here on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll leave it to the minister as to whether she wants to answer questions on things that she wasn't called here for. It's up to the members how they want to use their questioning time.

We'll move on to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for your appearance.

If I may, I'd like to begin on a personal note, not necessarily a political one. I want to say, Minister, that you're not of my political party, you're the opposite gender to me, you're one-half my age, yet I want you to know how proud I am to see you sitting there as a minister for Canada because to me it's not just a success story for the Liberals. I think Canada gets to claim part of the success. You're a symbol of how Canada works. I'm incredibly proud we have a country that would have someone with your background arrive in that chair as our minister and I wish you all the best, on a personal basis.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Now I will give you the ultimate respect and treat you the same as I would any other minister, and you would expect no less.

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

I expect nothing less, sir.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

First of all, this whole charade is something that we in the NDP aren't buying into. By way of visualizing, I would say that if we were starting with a blank slate and saying to the people of Canada, “We'll select your government by an appointment process and they'll be your representatives for law-making”, there would be a revolution. We don't do that.

What we did say was that we'll split the decision-making for laws into two parts. You get to elect one part, but for the other one we still stay in the dark ages and appoint. That's still the way we view this. It's legal, but it does not have legitimacy in the eyes of the Canadian people. In this day and age the fact that a vote in the upper House, because there are fewer of them than us, is worth more than that of an MP is nothing short of disgraceful as we present ourselves to the world as a mature democracy.

Having said that, it is still there and this process is there and we have to deal with it. You mention on page three of your remarks, Minister, there were at least four criteria that you'll be looking for. What I would like to know is, what are the assurances and guarantees in those new transparent criteria that would guarantee the likes of a Senator Duffy and a Senator Brazeau would not happen again?

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

Through you, Mr. Chair, thank you to the honourable member for his kind remarks. I do appreciate them. I recognize what a privilege it is to be here. What woman in my lineage could ever have dreamed of being in this place? It's one of the reasons why, every time I'm asked to appear before a committee, every time I'm asked to rise in the House to answer a question, I consider it a great honour. It's why I take my role as custodian of this process so seriously.

When we were developing our platform as a party, the now Prime Minister spent three years speaking and listening to Canadians, to experts, to different groups, to academics. When we developed our policy plank around a more open and transparent government, we heard loud and clear from Canadians that the Senate does need to change, that despite the good work of senators for generations, the effectiveness of the Senate has been hampered by the perception of partisanship.

We also heard loud and clear from Canadians that they do not want us to bring about change that would include a protracted constitutional debate. Canadians want us to focus on their issues—growing the economy, the environment and climate change, addressing the issues around missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The process we have introduced takes into account the constitutional framework that we need to be working within.

The processes that we've outlined, the accountability and the transparency that's embedded in it, the wide range of organizations and individuals who will be consulted, who will be asked to put their names forward—all of these will lead to a stronger and a more effective Senate. In just a few weeks, in just a few months, any Canadian who meets the constitutional requirements may put their name forward to be considered for appointment to the Senate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're right, Minister—and anybody who buys a lottery ticket also stands to be a multimillionaire by the end of the week. It sounds good in theory.

I didn't hear anything that really answered my question. The reality is that we've just gone from an appointment process to a more expanded appointment process, where other appointed people will now decide who the appointed people will be. The fact is that when we get a bad one.... Bad MPs get elected, but there's a mechanism to get rid of them. It's called an election. With senators, we're stuck with them until they're 75 years old.

With respect, Minister, I don't see anything in this criteria that will prevent the likes of another Senator Duffy or another Brazeau or, for some Liberal balance, a Mac Harb to still find their way into the Senate. It's still unaccountable and it's still unacceptable.

I want to pursue a couple of other things. Correct me if I'm wrong, Minister, but I believe you mentioned that you had received names for appointees to be on the selection committee from every province. What about Manitoba? Did you have names submitted from Manitoba?

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

Let me go just back to your previous—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Not too far back, Minister. My time is tight.

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

No, not too far back, but you thought I didn't answer your question.

Dear sir, you began your line of questioning by congratulating me on finding myself in this place. This is Canada, and if somebody like me can get herself elected in Canada, if somebody like me can be appointed to the Prime Minister's cabinet in Canada, then in this country anything is possible.

I want to leave that piece with you—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Don't kid yourself. You got there because of the power of election, Minister, with respect, and not because you knew somebody.

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

—because this is the spirit in which this new process is designed as well.

I'm looking, and the Prime Minister is looking, to bring more people like Senator Chaput to the Senate. We're looking for more Roméo Dallaires. We're looking for more Serge Joyals. We are looking for individuals like those who are in that chamber, who have been in that chamber before, to join their ranks.

That's the place we're coming from.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What about John and Jane Smith? You give all these great luminaries. We're ordinary people. You're ordinary people. I'm ordinary people. We got here through an election. This process will not put ordinary people in the Senate. If anything, they'll be tokens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, David and Minister.

The time is up for this round. We will now go to Mr. Graham.

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

We're going from one David to another.

Mr. Chair, I'll be sharing my time with my old boss, the former critic for democratic reform, Scott Simms.

I want to address a little bit what I think is the very important role of the Senate. For me the Senate is actually a very valuable institution, and I think it's very important to this country to have a body of people who do not have to worry about their next job and the next election, so they can make what I call a sober second decision, regardless of alcohol, David. It's not that kind of sober. That's a joke.

The Constitution mandates that the Senate exist. We can't get around that without having a wonderful big constitutional debate, which we've had many of in this country and we've all very much enjoyed. I wonder if you could talk about the importance of the Constitution in this process and how we're managing to stay within the boundaries of it while making a real, significant change to the Senate that will change how we get there.

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

Mr. Chair, we are confident that this new process works within the parameters of the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling. I'm surrounded by bright individuals who assure me that we are. We've maintained the Prime Minister's and the Governor General's independence in that process. The changes we have introduced don't change what's already there in terms of constitutional requirements; they only enhance the criteria. The process of appointments is a public, transparent, and merit-based one. I believe that is where the greatest amount of change is coming from, and we will be able to see that in the calibre of the individuals who are appointed.

I understand that you folks have a lot of fun around this table and that this particular conversation is one you've had before.

Ian, would you like to share your thoughts around this particular piece?