Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like a quick clarification. You said something, Ms. Arsenault, that I didn't quite catch, and it might have been a translation. You were saying something to the effect that you obviously take your job very seriously but you do recognize the importance, because otherwise laws without two chambers just get passed by a bunch of people, if I heard you correctly. If you recall what you said, could you clarify that for me?

[Jeannette Arsenault]

The government could be all on one side some day and they could pass what they want, but with having the Senate there, it's for sure going to be, as they call it, the House of sober thought. You can't have somebody pass laws that are not good for all of Canada because a group of people decide that they want to do it. It has to be well balanced, well judged, and well discussed. That's what I meant by that.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay. I thought that's what you meant. That's my problem with this whole thing. The people passing the laws are elected by the people. We knock on doors. We ask for support. We attend events. We meet with people and try to help them. The senators—and this has gone on for 150 years plus—now are being selected at Prime Ministerrandom. It was mostly partisan in the past, obviously, and Mr. Richards pointed to that, but still, the final say is done by the , and the Senate, as has been pointed out many times by Mr. Christopherson, who is not here, has more weight than the House of Commons because there are less of them.

I'm actually quite troubled by what you've just said. I'm quite taken aback, actually, by the fact that the people have chosen their elected representatives and that this somehow is just a bunch of people passing laws that may or may not be for the well-being of Canadians.... I guess we in the opposition can argue that what we're voting on today is not good for the Canadian public, and they'll vote that it's good for the public. I'm actually quite troubled by that.

In saying that, again, my whole concern is this whole process. It's just one more layer. I'm not saying that no one is doing their job. Everyone is very well qualified.

I hope that when I'm in Vancouver I can eat at one of your restaurants, Mr. Vij. It sounds amazing.

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

Where is the food truck? That sounds really amazing.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Yes, it does, and I hope to be a patron of yours someday.

It's this whole process. I know Ms. Sahota took offence when Mr. Richards said it was a sham, but it's the Prime Minister who has the final say. It's unfortunate, but I guess this is what we have to do, and the Prime Minister can say they gave me the names. If you look at who has been appointed....

Mr. Vij, this is perfect for you. In your experience, you meet a lot of people, and I guess so does Mr. Francis. When I look at who has been appointed, they look very similar to people who have been appointed in the past, and the problem I had at the beginning of this whole process, the people... They are very well educated, I'm not questioning that. Okay, please get that first. You two meet a lot of people—and I call them regular everyday Canadians—in the your job. I'd love to see someone from the agriculture community appointed to the Senate. I'd like to see more people from the business community appointed to the Senate. In your experience, and both of you have met many people, and I guess you have too, Ms. Arsenault, how can you help balance that out and get regular everyday Canadians participating in this process, and not the ex-bureaucrats or those from academia, just to add another view to the Senate?

[Vikram Vij]

Is that question for me?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

We can start with you. I've asked everyone.

[Vikram Vij]

I think the independent board does represent the academic, with Anne Giardini, who was the chancellor of SFU, and me as the commoner, chef, and businessman, as part of it. It represents those two people, and I think if I look around the independent board, we were very well chosen and from different parts of it. We were not just going to choose an academic professor, or just a business person, or just an immigrant, or anybody else. We chose those people based on their qualifications. We were broadly chosen, and so we chose broadly.

We passed on that same baton further down, and we recommended based on what we knew and our academics. We had enough discussions between Anne and myself about what she thought and what I thought. We would discuss things about a reference letter or a curriculum vitae and say, “Okay, this person has done this, so what do you think of that?” There was a lot of conversation, and the main national committee asked us questions, just as you are asking these questions. “Why did you think this person would work well? Why did you think this person should be recommended?” It was not just another layer, I have to say, of bureaucracy that was added on to it. It was a totally different process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do the other two witnesses want to respond to that?

Mr. Francis.

[Brian Francis]

I have nothing to add, other than to say that we used merit-based criteria and everything was applied equally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Arsenault, do you have anything to add?

[Jeannette Arsenault]

I agree we did that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Now we're going on to M. DeCourcey.

You have five minutes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the three witnesses for the work they have done for Canadians. As a member from New Brunswick, I am aware that Canadians are proud of the decisions made by these advisors from all over the country.

Ms. Arsenault, in responding to my colleague's question from the other side, I gathered and sensed that—and it's the same thing with Mr. Vij—there's a great concern among people here that parliamentarians tasked with making decisions do so with regard to the welfare of the entire country, the diversity of the whole country, and the diversity that exists across different demographics of Canadians. Diversity can express itself in ethnicity, upbringing, and those sorts of experiences and socio-economics, just to name a few areas. I think that all parliamentarians have a role to ensure that we are making decisions that are in the interests of a diversity of Canadians.

Can you each take a moment to speak to how your experience has provided you with the capacity to assess and understand the diversity of the regions with which you were tasked to make a decision? Take one example from an experience over the course of your professional or leisure experiences that will paint a picture for us as to how you are able to make decisions, understanding that there's a diversity of views that exist in any region of the country.

[Jeannette Arsenault]

The first thing we had to look at was who applied. I've been in my own business for 27 years. For sure, you learn a lot of skills. I've been on many committees, and I've been the Summerside chamber president. You gain a lot of expertise, because you are dealing with all kinds of different things. Just the fact that we are not somebody who is 16 years old and who hasn't really lived yet and doesn't have all the experience.... We don't have all the answers, but as a group, together, when we see what we have, we were as well qualified as anybody else in Canada to take on this task.

We are well respected in our community, as Mr. Francis said. We are people whom people come to sometimes, whether it's for advice on entrepreneurship or for different things. We are looked upon as leaders in our community. Just our CVs speak for themselves. I believe we were quite capable of making this decision. We're used to evaluating people. We're used to making decisions. That's what we were tasked with, and I feel that we were quite good at doing that. It showed right across the country. The people on the board, we were from all different walks of life, yet we all came together and made decisions based on our expertise, what we'd done in our lives, and all the experience we'd gained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Chief Francis, go ahead.

[Brian Francis]

I think Jeannette said it very well. As a first nation leader for 10 years, I have a good understanding of diversity and feel that I can make independent decisions based on the information before me, confidential and with sound judgment. These are the kinds of things that I've gained over the years, along with personal integrity. Within the province and outside the province, I feel that I am very suited to have made the choices that we did. We worked together very well in making the choices, and I'm proud of the job that we did.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Vij, go ahead.

[Vikram Vij]

I left India at the age of 19, and I went to Austria. I didn't speak a word of German, and now I speak fluent German. Being multicultural or having learned different languages, you learn to understand and respect the others' boundaries and who they are. I think that teaches you to be really pragmatic and able to make the right decisions. I think we have built reputations in our society, in our areas of what we do, so that people look at us as not just role models but also people they would ask advice from. I think that's the flag that we carried with pride.

The mosaic of people I have come across in my 25 years of living in this country and 35 years outside of India has given me a wealth of knowledge to be able to judge people based on who they are as human beings—not just on what kind of car they drive or what kind of house they have, but more on what kind of human being they are. It teaches you that way of thinking, of knowing when that person is able to make the right decisions. I think those qualifications for us were extremely important. I do hope that people will see that the process was absolutely beautiful and very well executed.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I appreciate those comments. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to pass judgment on me based on the kemptness of my house, so I appreciate that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Dusseault, you have our last intervention. Because there is another committee coming in here, I won't let you go much over your three minutes.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Francis, I'd like to get back to your knowledge of the Senate and the role of senators.

The situation is similar for all of us, when we choose our employees. Of course it is important to have some knowledge of the work that needs to be done to know if the candidate is qualified to do it.

What do you know about the Senate? Have you met any senators, seen the Senate debates or taken part in such debates before your appointment?