Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Members, I'm going to uncharacteristically start on time so that we don't lose any questioning time with the minister, so that we get her full hour.

This is meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the first session of the 42nd Parliament. The meeting is being held in public, and it's being televised.

Pursuant to an order adopted by the committee on February 4, we have with us today the Minister for Democratic Institutions, the Honourable Maryam Monsef, to speak and answer questions about the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments. The minister is accompanied by Ian McCowan, deputy secretary to the cabinet, legislation and House planning and machinery of government, Privy Council Office.

In our second hour we will be talking about the witness list and the caucus reports on family-friendly Parliament.

Thank you, Minister, for coming. I know there is great anticipation of having you here to talk about the new Senate process. We'll start right away so that we get the full amount of questioning in. I'll let you do your opening statement.

Thank you.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members.

What an honour it is to be here with you today on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples. We talked about this last night. Had it not been for all the ways in which settlers like me were welcomed to this land, we would not have succeeded individually or collectively.

As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, I have the great privilege of being accompanied by Mr. Ian McCowan.

As Minister for Democratic Institutions, I have a mandate to deliver on the government's commitment to strengthen the openness and fairness of our democratic institutions. This committee—your committee—plays an important role in delivering on this commitment. I sincerely believe that it can lead the way in elevating the tone and the conduct of how we represent ourselves in committees, in the House, and to our constituents, and how we deliberate on the issues that matter most to Canadians.

As part of my mandate, I have the lead role in all matters relating to the development and implementation of the process with respect to the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments. Think of me as the custodian of the process. I can answer any questions you may have about its establishment, including the advisory board's terms of reference and the criteria being used to assess candidates.

The advisory board is an independent, arm's-length body. As such, I am not in a position to speak on their behalf.

As many of us agree, the Senate plays an important role in our democratic system; however, its legitimacy has suffered because of the partisan nature of the appointment system. It has become a place where political ties are often perceived as being more important than the best interests of Canadians. The new merit-based process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments was designed to remove that partisan element and to help reinvigorate the Senate.

Before getting into the details of the process, I think it's important to have an understanding of the four principles that reinforce its legitimacy and effectiveness.

First, the process recognizes the important role that the Senate has in providing sober second thought and regional representation, as well as representation for minorities. Second, the process respects the constitutional framework by maintaining the Governor General's power to appoint senators on the advice of the Prime Minister. Third, the process includes elements to promote transparency and accountability, including public merit-based criteria for Senate nominees, public terms of reference for the advisory board, and public reporting on the process itself. Fourth, the process is designed to select Senate nominees who can conduct themselves in an independent, non-partisan fashion.

Canadians have asked for change, yes, but they do not wish our government to enter into constitutional negotiations. This new process delivers on that. The government is also fully confident that the new process respects our constitutional framework.

The key component of the new process is the independent advisory board, which has a mandate to provide the Prime Minister with non-binding merit-based recommendations on Senate appointments. The advisory board consists of five members: a federal chair and two other permanent federal members, whom you have met, and two ad hoc provincial members from each of the provinces or the territories where vacancies exist.

You've met the chair of the advisory board, Ms. Huguette Labelle. She has been recognized many times for her senior leadership roles in public service, and her years of experience do provide her with a solid basis to meet the challenges of leading the advisory process. You may also be interested to know that she brings with her a depth of knowledge on matters related to transparency as past chair of Transparency International.

Professor Daniel Jutras and Dr. Indira Samarasekera have been here before.

All of the advisory board members are impressive. I could take all of the time we have here together talking about each one of them individually, but what I want to leave you with is the confidence that they represent a range of experiences, from all walks of life, whether it's education, constitutional law, science, medicine, or the arts.

There are two phases to the process we have introduced. In the transitional phase, which is well under way, the advisory board is responsible for providing the Prime Minister with a shortlist for five vacancies in three provinces: two in Manitoba, two in Ontario, and one in Quebec. In this phase the advisory board was mandated to consult with a wide variety of groups, including indigenous, linguistic, minority, and ethnic communities; provincial, territorial, and municipal organizations; labour organizations; community-based groups; arts councils; and provincial and territorial chambers of commerce.

The idea was to allow the board to hear from a diverse range of individuals and bring forward a list that includes people from a diversity of backgrounds and experiences, but also with knowledge of the Senate. The permanent phase will begin shortly after the completion of the transitional phase and the appointments of the first five senators. In the permanent phase, the remaining vacancies will be filled from the seven provinces where vacancies currently exist.

In the permanent phase all Canadians will be able to apply directly for appointment to the Senate. Let me tell you a bit about the criteria. In both phases the advisory board will assess potential candidates on the basis of transparent, merit-based criteria. These criteria are public. They include the following: candidates—and I believe you have the criteria—must have a record of achievement and leadership either in service to their community, the public, their profession, or their field of expertise; candidates will need to possess outstanding and proven personal qualities in terms of public life, ethics, and integrity; candidates are expected to have an ability to bring a perspective and contribution to the work of the Senate that is clearly independent and non-partisan; and candidates must have demonstrated an understanding of the Senate's role in our constitutional framework, including the role of the Senate as an independent body of sober second thought, the role it plays in regional representation, and the representation it provides to minorities.

These criteria will be applied in a way that respects the importance of gender balance and Canada's diversity in the selection process. The public criteria will provide an important framework for the entire process both in terms of ensuring that candidates of the highest standard are selected, but also to allow Canadians to hold us accountable to this process.

I'd now like to talk about our commitment to carry out an open and transparent process. As I mentioned earlier, one of the foundational principles of this process is the importance of transparency and accountability. In that context each step of the process has been designed to be as open and transparent as possible. The merit-based criteria for Senate nominees was published online so that all Canadians could see the qualifications and skill sets that the advisory board has been using to assess candidates.

When the advisory board was appointed, the government published the terms of reference setting out the board's mandate. The advisory board itself established a public website calling for nominations during the transitional phase and has reached out broadly to consult with organizations.

The permanent phase of the advisory process will feature an open application process to which any qualified Canadian can submit an application. There is a requirement that the advisory board provide us with a report on their activities after each cycle of appointments. I believe this is an unprecedented level of openness in a process that has been previously shrouded in secrecy.

That said, in order to attract the best and brightest candidates a degree of confidentiality is required in order for the process to succeed, just as is the case with any other job competition. We want to ensure that all qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds have the confidence to put their names forward without fearing that at the end of the process their names or other personal information will be publicized. It's for that reason that the names of unsuccessful candidates will not be received.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. I had three lines to read, yet the chair has waved and said the time is up.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think we can extend the minister the necessary time to read the remaining three lines. I think we should extend that obvious courtesy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, you can do your three lines.

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

What a good man you are, sir.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Hold that thought.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

To conclude, I am confident that the advisory process will help to reinvigorate the Senate in a way that reinforces its fundamental role in our parliamentary system, while reducing partisanship.

I look forward to working with your committee, not only on Senate reform but also on the government's various mandates to strengthen our democracy and restore the public's trust in our institutions. We all have a role to play in setting a positive tone for that debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the honourable member, who is also my critic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we're going to the first round of seven-minute questioning or comments, and we'll start with Madam Petipas Taylor.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, Minister Monsef, thank you for taking the time to meet with our committee today. We recognize that you're extremely busy, and on such short notice you made the time. We appreciate your presentation and your willingness to meet and answer our questions.

The first question I have is that you've indicated that you're the custodian of the process. I'm wondering if you or the advisory board has had the opportunity to meet with the provinces regarding the actual process that's in place right now.

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

It's a great pleasure to be here. I've been looking forward to this.

When we began setting out the framework for this process, we decided that an important hallmark would be that for the first time provinces would be included in this conversation. To that end, I reached out to my colleagues in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba. We asked each province to provide us with a list of five individuals who would represent their respective provinces on the ad hoc committee for the provinces with the vacancies.

We had very productive conversations, and in the end I was pleased to receive names from Ontario and Quebec. After the process was wrapped up, in terms of filling those seats on the advisory board, we asked all three provinces to provide us with feedback on how we can improve the transitional process as we turn it into a permanent base. We look forward to continuing that collaboration.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Have you received any feedback from the province regarding those consultations that you had with them?

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

All three provinces were thrilled that we were having this conversation and we were engaging on the Senate appointment process. The feedback that we've received from all three will be given serious consideration as we move forward to enhance the permanent phase, if that need be.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I have one last question, because I'm sharing my time with Ms. Sahota.

Could you perhaps speak to us about the present process and how it compares to the past or previous process?

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

I'm sure that we join many Canadians who are curious about what the process was in governments past. The difference here is that there is a process and that the process is public. Whether it's the criteria on which we're asking the advisory board to assess potential candidates, or their terms of reference, or the report that the advisory board will release after the process is wrapped up, all of this is out there. It is open for the public's review.

The reason is that we feel it's important to enhance Canadians' trust and confidence in this institution. One of the best ways we can do that is to include Canadians in the process instead of attempting to do this behind the curtain.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you for being with us here today, Minister. We've been looking forward to your visit.

You have touched upon this quite a bit, but why in your opinion does this government feel that this process is the preferred process and will actually work, in comparison to the previous process that we don't know much about?

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

We believe that the establishment of the advisory boards and framework we have outlined, in itself, is a huge success. We are attempting something that hasn't been done before, and we recognize that it's a challenge. But mostly in this there's a great deal of opportunity. We are confident it will work because we have received positive feedback from Canadians. We're confident it will work because we have received positive feedback from some senators already.

Some people in this room were at the parliamentary consultation I hosted, and the feedback I received there, whether it was from members of Parliament or senators across party lines, included that confidence we were aiming for, that level of trust we were hoping to increase. That's already happening. I look forward to having those first five appointed. I believe their merits and their qualifications and their contributions will speak for themselves.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You spoke about the background of some of the permanent federal members that came before this committee, and how they're diverse. But in particular, could you give us an example of what kinds of qualities you were looking for in these permanent members and also in the ad hoc members? You were saying that you asked the provinces to present you five from which you would chose two. How did you make that narrowing down of whom you would choose to put on the...?

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

The criteria that the Prime Minister and the Governor in Council took into consideration when appointing the advisory board members are very much in line with the criteria we've asked the advisory board to use to assess potential Senate candidates. We were looking for individuals who were demonstrating and had demonstrated leadership and service to their communities. We were looking for individuals who had been accountable to their stakeholders. We were looking for individuals who understood the importance of the Senate within our constitutional framework and recognized the role the Senate plays in providing that sober second thought as an upper chamber.

We were looking for people who could demonstrate the ability to conduct their work in an independent and non-partisan fashion. We were looking for people who have done their work and have worked throughout their lives demonstrating those personal qualities around ethics and integrity. We also wanted to make sure that the different ranges of experiences and backgrounds that are reflected within Canadian society would be reflected within the advisory board. We are happy to say we believe we have achieved that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota.

Now we'll go to Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you, Minister. It's a pleasure to have you here. I miss our question period exchanges in the House of Commons. I thought we were like the Disraeli and Gladstone of the 42nd Parliament or maybe the Churchill and Lady Astor or the Archy and Mehitabel. It was a pleasure while it lasted.

I had a series of three questions that I think are so closely related that it is more logical for me to ask them as a chunk, rather than separately. Regarding the advisory boards and the lists that they have been compiling, when you and Mr. LeBlanc appeared before the Senate rules committee, he indicated that the advisory boards needed some extra time, just a couple of extra weeks.

My first question therefore is this. Have the lists yet been submitted to the Prime Minister?

The second question I have is on the decision regarding the phase one process to send out nomination forms as well as applications. Was that made by the government or was it made by the advisory boards?

Thirdly, Myriam Bédard, who serves as a Quebec member on one of the advisory boards, the one dealing with Quebec, indicated that about 100 requests for nominations had been sent out. Is that more or less a standard number for all three of the provinces, and how many of those came back? How many actual nominations were received? How large a pool were you dealing with in the end, or was the advisory board dealing with?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question.

I do miss our back-and-forth in the House of Commons, and I will take this opportunity to point out that the process is completely in your hands, sir, so whenever you're ready to come back to our back-and-forth in the House of Commons...I impatiently await it. I do appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation with you here today.

To your question, I want to make it very clear that the independent, arm's-length nature of the advisory board, as you can all appreciate, makes it so that I have not been involved in the consultations they've had. I have not seen any of the lists they've received, or the lists that are being recommended, or where the lists are at, for that matter.

What I do know is that, recognizing that this particular group of Canadians put quite a bit on the line to be part of something that has not been done before, we wanted to provide them with the right tools and the right capacity to do that work. They're in the process of carrying out the transitional phase of the process. Once that phase has wrapped up, they will be providing us, you, and all Canadians with a report on how the process went, who they reached out to, and so on and so forth.

On the application process and the forms, the independent advisory board independently chose to take that route, because they must have felt that it was the right thing to do. I don't have any more details about numbers or where their process and outreach is at. All I can tell you is that I join you in also impatiently awaiting the list and any reports they may have about the process.

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

Thank you.

Just for the benefit of other members here, this is why we want to get the members of the advisory board back again. It was an issue that Mr. Chan spoke at length about in regard to why we don't want them back again, saying that we can get this information from the minister.

It turns out that the questions I've raised here, which are the same ones I raised to members of the advisory board and which were found to be out of order, are precisely the ones that can only be addressed if you guys on the Liberal side do not attempt to prevent us from bringing them back again. Otherwise, we get no transparency or openness at all.

My next question for you, Minister, is on what you indicated to the media on February 1. I'm quoting here from a Joan Bryden article, which says that Minister Monsef says she's “not ready to commit” to a categorical rejection of a referendum on electoral reform. From your previous answers and Minister LeBlanc's previous comments, I had a sense that you hadn't shut the door completely.

Under what circumstances would we get a categorical yes or no from the government to a referendum on electoral reform?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't think this is relevant. We've called in the minister to discuss the appointments process. We have only one hour in which to get answers to a lot of important questions that Mr. Reid has wanted answered for a long time. I believe we should continue staying within the mandate that we've asked her in on.