Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I call the meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

Just so everyone knows, this meeting is televised. This is meeting number 6 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the first session of the 42nd Parliament.

Today, first of all, we're going to examine the order in council appointment of Huguette Labelle to the position of chair of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments. We'll review her qualifications. Second, we will return to our study of the initiatives to make Parliament more inclusive, more friendly, and more efficient, with an informal report from our researcher on what other parliaments around the world do. Last, we will work on our agenda for the next meeting, which we haven't set yet.

The witness is going to make a few statements, and then I will just make a comment before we go to the questioning, unless anyone has anything they want to raise at this time.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we are examining the order in council appointment of Huguette Labelle to the position of chair of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments, as referred to the committee on Friday, January 29, 2016. I welcome the witness.

Thank you for coming on such short notice. This committee seems to be moving so fast that we can't give people very much notice. You only had a day or so, so it's fantastic that you could make it. I started to read your CV this morning. It's as long as the meeting. That's great.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you, and then we'll have some questions from the committee.

[Huguette Labelle, Chair, Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments]

Thank you very much, Chair. It's been quite a long time since I appeared in front of a parliamentary committee, something I used to do quite frequently as a deputy minister, so I'm looking forward to the discussion this morning.

As you know, our mandate is to make non-binding, merit-based recommendations to the Prime Minister for appointments to the Senate.

I would just like to say a few words about my background so that it can perhaps help you with your questions.

As a deputy minister for 19 years, I was able to see the work of Parliament first-hand, because there are many pieces of legislation that come from various departments, as you know. As a deputy minister, you have to follow the process as it goes through the House of Commons and through the Senate, and be able to work, and rework sometimes, with the minister and the Department of Justice, some of the content of that legislation. That is one area where I was able to see first-hand the, let's say, architecture of the Parliament of our country.

I was also brought close to the work of the House and the Senate when I was president of CIDA. Many countries around the world wanted to learn from our own experience here. I'm thinking in particular of South Africa, for example, with which we worked very closely on their constitutional review. They were very interested in our form of federalism but also in how the institutions of the state were working in Canada. They were looking elsewhere, of course, but we were the key supporter to help them learn from the rest of the world, and then, of course, to adapt and make their own decisions at the end.

I'm using South Africa, but there were many other countries that were in the same situation. Especially after 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, many countries in central and eastern Europe were also interested in what we were doing. We were able, during that period, to do some twinning with various institutions of our own country to help those countries to think through how they could improve the situation in their own country.

Perhaps the last point I would like to make is that when I was chair of the board of Transparency International, which is an anti-corruption organization, people used to tell me that I would have work for the rest of my life to deal with this issue. However, one has to be an optimist, and we worked very hard in this very important area to try to help countries around the world build the kinds of institutions that could prevent corruption and deal with it when it happens. Also, to ensure that the rule of law works in the countries where corruption is high, we worked on conventions and recommended legislation. Again, there was quite a lot of work in this regard, which I think will be helpful to the work that we need to do at this time.

That's all I'd like to say, Mr. Chair.

It will be my pleasure to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

I want to make one quick comment before we go to questioning.

I'm hoping this committee will show great leadership and cooperation. It's the first committee meeting, and I hope we continue in this way. Personally, I am focused on two things. One is for this new Parliament to show a good example of respect and appreciation to outside witnesses as they come before us,, whoever they are and on whatever committee, because we appreciate them. The other is that we perform the task that Parliament assigned to us. I'll just read it again. I read it at the end of the last meeting.

This meeting is being held pursuant to Standing Order 111, which states:

"The committee, if it should call an appointee or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated."

Members may also refer to pages 1011 to 1013 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

We will start questioning with Ms. Petitpas Taylor, who will be followed by Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Labelle, thank you once again for joining us this morning. We know this meeting was called in a hurry, and we are extremely grateful that you were able to find the time to participate.

I also want to thank you for your contribution to Canada over your entire career. Your resumé is so impressive that we're not sure where to begin.

Finally, I want to thank you for accepting to chair the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments. That's a very important role and, once again, we appreciate you agreeing to chair the board.

We sometimes ask witnesses to tell us about their credentials, qualifications and all accomplishments. They're often a little embarrassed to be putting their resumé on display like that. However, in order for the committee members to get a good understanding of your accomplishments, we would like you to give us a detailed account of your credentials, contributions, and so on.

[Huguette Labelle]

Thank you, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

In addition to what I mentioned in my introduction, I was also chair of the Public Service Commission of Canada during my career. Back then, just like today, the law stipulated that our role was to ensure that public service appointments were based on merit. Over those five years, I spent a lot of time making sure we could be proud of our public service. We had a system that enabled us to ensure that the candidates applying for a position met the selection criteria. That helped me realize how important it is to select individuals for important positions based on their merit, their qualifications, their experience and their knowledge. And that is something I wanted to bring up.

I will raise another point. I have also worked closely with the OECD, where I still work. I sit on a committee of the OECD Secretary General where we are trying to figure out what the OECD can do to ensure greater integrity among its members, but also beyond. In fact, the OECD also works closely with developing countries. Its work is not only focused on OECD countries. The committee is tasked with reviewing the work done by the OECD so far in terms of integrity and the fight against corruption, as well as giving the Secretary General relevant recommendations. For instance, we are trying to determine whether the OECD could increase its impact if it moved toward different or additional options.

I will stop here.

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

Great.

Can you tell us about your studies and university degrees? We know that witnesses are a bit embarrassed to talk about that, but we want to understand properly.

[Huguette Labelle]

Yes.

I have always thought it was important to continue our studies for as long as possible. In my case, I mostly went to school part time, because I had a family and a job while I was doing my master's degree and my doctorate.

Every department I have worked for has had teams of researchers. Therefore, in order to better understand how those researchers worked, what they did, and to ensure that I had the right people in place, I told myself that I should earn a doctorate. That helped me learn a lot more about research, research methods, statistics, and so on.

That is why I continued my studies. In fact, I did not earn my doctorate until the age of 40, while being the Assistant Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. That is why I wrote my thesis from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m., but it was done.

I have been a mentor to many young and not-so-young Canadians. I always encourage them to continue their studies, not only because it helps them acquire additional knowledge, but also because it gives them more confidence in themselves and in what they could do in the future.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Madame Labelle, welcome to our committee. It's a pleasure to have you here. I'm very interested to learn more about your mandate and some of the things you're expected to do in that mandate, and to find out exactly how you go about them.

I wanted to ask about phase 1 of the Senate nomination and appointment process, which is under way right now. It was announced on Friday, January 29, at 6:30 p.m. that all applications under this process must be submitted by noon on February 15, at which point your role would kick in. I recognize that you have no role at the moment while the applications are under way.

I have concerns about the constitutionality of the phase 1 process. In particular, I am concerned that the way in which it's structured may result in a compromise of the independence of people being appointed to the Senate unconstitutionally. I wanted to ask you about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I have some concerns that this goes beyond the premise of today's review of the competency of the witness before us. An examination of the mandate of this independent Senate appointment committee is not within the scope of the particular standing order by which this witness was called.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. If Mr. Reid could stay on the competence of the witness, that would be appreciated.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm just going to ask that this point of order, which has taken, I think, something in the nature of a minute, not be taken off my time. Is that reasonable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. It is not being taken off. We stopped the time. You still have about six minutes left.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Here's what I'm wondering about. You are being submitted nomination and application forms, which will, after they have been submitted and filled out, be considered “Protected B”. I'm just wondering whether that means that the names of the nominated individuals and of the agencies will remain confidential and whether you will regard yourself as being bound to not reveal the names of the agencies or organizations that have put forward the nominations. Will that be something which you will not be able to—

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

Mr. Chair, my point of order is on the table, and he's continuing the line of questioning. I think you need to rule on my point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid, if you could stay to the qualifications and the competence of the witness to perform this role, that would be appreciated.

We stopped the time again.

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

Just so I can be clear, Mr. Chair, what I'm doing is trying to deal with the fact that we may have a witness who is being drawn, not through her own fault by any stretch of the imagination, into a process that is unconstitutional and does irreparable harm to the credibility and independence of people appointed to the Senate of Canada. This might be a process that will be kept confidential and secret so that we cannot confirm whether that compromise of independence has occurred. This is due to a process that she is being embroiled in whereby she would be required to treat certain information as secret. That information would be absolutely essential in determining this critical matter of public interest, that is, whether the independence of newly appointed senators has been compromised by means of the nomination process and the tight links that must be formed between the individual making the application and the nominating agency.

This is a process that has never occurred before in our Confederation, and it could well, as I say, violate the requirement that senators not be appointed in a manner that compromises their independence. It's something the Supreme Court is being very strict about. It is of concern to me, and I think it should be a concern to all of us. This is our only chance to ask her before the appointment process is actually over, and at that point the harm will have been done. I think it's reasonable to ask in this form and in this way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid, that is a process question. The committee could look at that process if it so willed, but today's meeting is to look at the qualifications of the witness to perform this role. If you want to pursue process questions, it doesn't mean the committee can't proceed with those in its committee business, but not today. This is just to ask the witness about her qualifications for this particular job.

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

It's my understanding that we would be able to ask the witness any question that is germane. I don't recall having decided that we would only be able to ask her questions that were related to her own competence. That's something, quite frankly, I'm not challenging. I have no qualms about the witness's competence or ability to perform her task. I think Madam Labelle is eminently qualified. What I'm worried about is that she is being drawn into a process that will be unconstitutional and that we will not be able to remedy.

Mr. Chair, if I may go on for a moment here, the critical point here is that we're about to go on break. When the break is over and we come back, it will be February 16, and the nomination process will be closed at that point. It will be of no use to ask her those questions then.

I didn't design this. The government decided to rush it, and we are now limited in a way that we can't correct unless we have a special meeting next week to ask her these questions. It's problematic, to say the least.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid, we're operating under a standing order of the House of Commons, which this committee has no authority to change or to expand at this time. If you like, you can to continue with your last five minutes on the qualifications of the candidate, and if you want to discuss those other items.... We have to start the time soon, because other witnesses will lose their time.

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

Mr. Chair, are you saying that we are incapable of holding a meeting at which we ask her the kinds of questions I'm trying to ask about the constitutional ramifications of how she performs her job and so on? Is that literally outside the remit of this committee? Are you saying that when we adopted a motion to hold this meeting, the motion forbade the asking of these questions?

That's important, because if it's just that we moved the motion in a certain way that forbade us to ask these questions, then I will seek the consent of the committee to open up the questions so that I may ask her about these critical issues, which really need to be dealt with before February 15th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I've read this twice to you, Mr. Reid, so you should be aware of this. You've been on the committee before. Standing Order 111 states:

If the committee decides to call the appointee or nominee to appear, it is limited by the Standing Orders to examining the individual's qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the office sought.

That's the understanding of all the committee members who are here and the witness who is here. Because our time is going to run out, we're going to have to limit your time, and unless you want to continue asking on the competence of the member—

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

You know—