Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence - February 24, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day, at 6:46 p.m., to study the new Senate appointment process and its possible impact.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to welcome all the senators joining us for this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
[English]
We are very pleased to have with us two ministers of the Crown this evening. It is a testimony to the interest we all have in the subject they are here to talk about that we have so many senators present in this committee.
[Translation]
We will be studying the new Senate appointment process and its possible impact. We have two ministers joining us this evening, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Leader of the Government in the House of Commons —
[English]
— and the Honourable Maryam Monsef, P.C., M.P., Minister of Democratic Institutions.
I understand, ministers, that you have opening statements, which we will of course be extremely interested to hear. Then because of this wonderful turnout and because ministers' time is perforce always limited, I will ask everybody to keep their questions brief, please.
Ministers, we want you to tell us good stuff, but if you could do it as concisely as possible, that would be helpful to all of us.
I believe Minister Monsef will lead off. The floor is yours.
Hon. Maryam Monsef, P.C., M.P., Minister of Democratic Institutions: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will begin by acknowledging our presence in this stunning room with the beautiful works of art, some by artists known, many artists unknown. We are gathered here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples, and what a great privilege it is for me to be here among all of you. Some of you I have met, some of you I have met while on crutches, and all of you I have read about. It is a great honour for me to be here with Dominic LeBlanc to share with you some of the pieces of work we have been up to, and I look forward to continuing to work with all of you.
I will be focusing my remarks on the key elements of the advisory process, while I understand that Minister LeBlanc will be focusing on the implications for the Senate in terms of parliamentary process.
Needless to say, the Senate plays an important role in our Parliament, and one of the government's key objectives was to ensure that the new appointments process respects the Senate's role and ensures that the good work of senators continues.
One of the key principles underlying this new system is respect for the Senate's fundamental role in sober second thought, regional representation and minority representation. That principle runs through all of the elements of the new process. Knowledge of the Senate and the role that it plays in our Parliament is one of the factors in both the make-up of the advisory board and in the assessment of the candidates.
In addition, the process is grounded in several other important principles. It respects the constitutional framework by maintaining the Governor General's power to appoint senators on the advice of the Prime Minister. It promotes transparency and accountability through published merit-based criteria for Senate nominees, public terms of reference for the advisory board and public reporting on the process itself. It is designed to ensure that candidates have the ability to conduct themselves in the Senate as independent and non-partisan participants.
The advisory board has a mandate to provide non-binding merit-based recommendations and will provide the Prime Minister with a short list of five for each vacancy. The non-binding nature of the advice is key to ensuring the constitutionality of the process.
The advisory board will assess potential nominees on the basis of transparent merit-based criteria, including the following: Candidates must have a record of achievement and leadership either in service to their community, the public or their chosen field or profession.
Candidates will need to possess an understanding of and proven personal qualities in terms of public life, ethics and integrity.
As I mentioned earlier, candidates will be expected to have the ability to bring a perspective to the work of the Senate that is clearly independent and non-partisan and to understand the Senate's work and the role it has in the institutional and the constitutional framework.
These criteria will be applied in a way that respects the importance of gender balance and Canada's diversity in the selection process.
As you may know, there are two phases to this new process. In the transitional phase, the advisory board will provide the Prime Minister with a short list for the vacancies in three provinces: two in Manitoba, two in Ontario and one in Quebec.
The advisory board has been instructed to consult widely to ensure that a diverse slate of individuals with a variety of backgrounds, experiences and knowledge of the Senate are brought forward for the board's consideration.
The permanent process will begin after the completion of the transitional phase and the appointment of the first five senators. In the permanent phase, the remaining vacancies will be filled from the seven provinces where vacancies currently exist.
A key difference in the permanent phase will be the establishment of an open application process that will allow Canadians to apply for appointment to the Senate.
Following the transitional phase and after each subsequent appointment process, the advisory board will provide a public report to the Prime Minister that sets out how it performed its mandate.
In closing, I want to emphasize that nothing in this new process is meant to diminish in any fashion the good work of current or past senators in both the parliamentary process, but also with the important work that is done through policy studies and the work that's been done over the years.
The new appointment process respects the Senate's traditional roles, including regional and minority representation, and it is a key element of our broader vision for democratic change, to modernize and enhance the public's confidence in our democratic institutions.
I truly believe that the Senate will become a more independent and highly effective institution by removing the element of partisanship and ensuring that the interests of Canadians are placed before political ties.
On a personal note, it is quite humbling for me to be here. My goal as Minister of Democratic Institutions is to make sure that Canadians better understand the work that all of you do and the work of senators before you.
There are artists on these walls whose names and stories we will never know, and that's a tragedy. My job is to make sure by working with you that Canadians understand your stories and the important work that you do in making their lives, their children's lives and their grandchildren's lives better.
I thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to a collaborative relationship with all of you.
With that, Madam Chair, I will hand it back over to you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Monsef.
Minister LeBlanc.
[Translation]
The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: Thank you, Madam Chair, for generously inviting me to appear before the committee. I sincerely appreciate it. It is always a privilege to sit alongside my friend and colleague, Minister Monsef. We work jointly, as she said, on different aspects of an issue of great importance to you, and it's a privilege to be here with my colleague.
[English]
Senators, it is my first time as a witness before a Senate committee. I have followed some of your committees. I have a number of longtime friends sitting around this table, people that I have worked with in shared projects and people who I admire and whose friendship is valuable to me.
It is for me personally, as Maryam said, an opportunity but also an honour to be invited to and appear before the Senate Rules Committee. I understand the important and senior role your committee plays in the institution. I was teasing some of your colleagues that to see so many people come to a meeting is either a very good sign for Maryam and me or a very bad sign. We will know in the next 50 minutes.
[Translation]
Just before I get down to specifics, I would also like to thank Senators Joyal, Seidman and Cowan for their service.
[English]
A number of your colleagues have served on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. I have heard from people around this table and from our colleagues in the House of Commons that it has been a very positive experience. Our colleagues in the House of Commons appreciated it. They learned from their colleagues in the Senate. I think the committee accomplished a great deal of work on a very sensitive matter. The report comes out tomorrow.
Parliament should be very proud of this exercise. Your colleagues in the Senate that contributed should be proud. I know our colleagues in the House of Commons are. I think it is a good example for Canadians, and I salute your work on the committee and the leadership that you have provided. I want to assure you that when the government drafts a piece of legislation, it will reflect both your committee recommendations, your committee report and the work you have done.
Madam Chair, just to pick up on what my colleagues said, as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the particular focus I have had is on the effective functioning of the parliamentary process and ensuring that the Government of Canada is able to deliver on the important legislative commitments we have made to Canadians.
[Translation]
There is no doubt that the Senate plays a key role in the parliamentary process by providing sober second thought on legislation introduced and debated in the House of Commons. The new appointment process, as my colleague said, was designed to respect the Senate's fundamental role in ensuring legislative review, regional representation for the provinces and territories, and minority representation. I'm sure you can appreciate that, as an Acadian, I feel very strongly about that.
I would also like to highlight the key role the Senate plays in developing policies that matter deeply to Canadians. As my colleague pointed out, Senate committees have historically played a crucial role in shaping Canada's public policy, and I believe they will continue to do so going forward.
[English]
As my colleague announced, the government intends to proceed with a new appointments process. There's been some discussion publicly around the first five appointments that the Prime Minister will be recommending to the Governor General in the coming weeks. We don't yet have an exact time as to when that will be. The advisory committees and the process are taking a few more weeks than we had hoped, but it is coming soon.
It will come, as I mentioned to some your colleagues last evening, I hope before significant pieces of government legislation arrive in the Senate. I have no reason to think that will not be the case.
We will be appointing a government representative from amongst these first five independent senators appointed under this new process. This senator will act as the government representative in your chamber in order to facilitate, for example, the introduction of government legislation. However, unlike perhaps a traditional government leader function, this individual will not be bound by party or political ties, as has been the case in the past.
There has been some confusion around this. Under the Parliament of Canada Act, and I understand in many of your rules, the office is called the "Leader of the Government" in the Senate. So we will be appointing a government leader in the Senate to be styled as the government representative. There shouldn't be any mystery about this.
In order this person, he or she, will be able to properly operate in your rules, as we understand them, but also in the Parliament of Canada Act, which is a statute that remains in force, the government leader will be styled as the government representative, but for the purposes of the rules and the statutory requirement, that person will be the government leader.
One of the key objectives, as my colleague mentioned, of the new appointments process is to try to transform the institution to be less partisan in a way that can perform the roles of legislative review and amendment in an effective way.
I want to say this also to colleagues and senators. As your committees look at legislation, when you make amendments to government bills, in the interests of strengthening or improving those pieces of legislation, our colleagues in cabinet have been told to consider positively those amendments. We do not see the Senate amending a government bill to improve it, fix it or strengthen it as a defeat, a problem or a crisis. We see it as proof positive that the institution is fulfilling its important role. We look forward as ministers to working with your committees on legislation, when it arrives here. My colleagues will be very open-minded when they come to committees. They will be available to appear before your committees, and I know a number of them have enjoyed their experience participating in your Question Period.
[Translation]
One of the biggest challenges in that regard is the Senate's tradition of dividing the chamber up between the government and the opposition, as stipulated in the Parliament of Canada Act, which also refers to the roles of the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
[English]
It was in recognition of that challenge that in December I wrote on behalf of the government to the Speaker of the Senate and to Senators Carignan and Cowan. In that letter, I offered whatever assistance the government could provide the Senate if it wanted to consider changes to the Parliament of Canada Act that would affect the Senate, that would be necessary to the smooth, effective and efficient operation of your chamber or its committees. I will be introducing amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, for which I'm responsible as a minister in the House of Commons, to deal with our Board of Internal Economy to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a truly independent officer of Parliament with the same status as the other officers of Parliament and not have him or her buried in the Library of Parliament.
I have mandate instructions from the Prime Minister which require the Parliament of Canada Act to be opened. I would be amenable to suggestions that Senate colleagues would have or whatever process you, Madam Chair, or your colleagues think is appropriate. I would prefer that we could do together amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that would reflect your priorities, those in the House of Commons and for which I have a mandate assignment from the Prime Minister, and then we could pass, effectively and efficiently, a piece of legislation that would meet the objectives of both the House of Commons and the Senate.
I mentioned Senate Question Period. I will finish with that because I know colleagues have questions. This is, in my view, a very positive example of a new relationship between the government and the Senate. To have elected ministers sitting on the Senate floor answering questions has been, I know for Maryam and my colleagues, a very positive experience. Our colleague the defence minister today said he really enjoyed his appearance. He thought it was very positive and useful time spent. Our colleagues look forward to coming back as schedules permit and as your chamber decides it is important to you, so we will continue to work with your leadership and accommodate, as best as we can, ministers to appear before the Senate. As long as you find it useful and interesting, our cabinet colleagues find it something that is also very valuable. It would be something we would propose to continue.
[Translation]
On that note, Madam Chair, thank you for your patience. Once again, I appreciate your invitation. My colleague and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Good, because it's a long list.
[English]
Colleagues, we already have something like 16 names on the list, and I will repeat my request for concise, brief questions.
At least on this round, if we could avoid supplementary questions that are not absolutely essential for clarification, it would also help. We want to give all colleagues an equal chance, a fair chance. The ministers said they would be leaving 40 minutes from now. Forty divided by 16 is two and a half. I'm going to plead with you to see if you can extend your stay a bit, ministers.
We will begin with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator White. He will be followed by Senator Cowan.
Senator White: Thank you very much. My question will be short. Hopefully the response will be as well.
Has the position of government representative or leader been offered at this point, Minister Monsef?
Ms. Monsef: Thank you for your question. No, it has not.
Senator White: If I may, when can we expect to know a name so that we can get on with our business?
Ms. Monsef: I can appreciate your desire to get to know your new colleagues. I am quite anxious as well. We have appointed a group of prominent Canadians who hold themselves to very high standards.
Senator White: I understand.
Ms. Monsef: We have given them a task that is quite a big one. We're giving them the time they need to do their due diligence and provide a list to the Prime Minister. From that list, the Prime Minister will exercise his constitutional responsibilities and choose a government representative.
Senator White: Thank you.
Senator Cowan: Welcome, ministers. I appreciate your coming this evening.
Minister LeBlanc, you mentioned that the government representative would not be bound by party ties, but would be — I don't want to use this word — facilitating the passage of the management of the government's business. Will this representative be answerable for the government to senators in the way that government leaders in the past have been answerable?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, I don't think we have arrived at a final conclusion on that. I would think that would be a conversation the Prime Minister would have with this person, once the Prime Minister decides on who he or she will be. We would welcome, again, your input on that in the sense that — I don't want to speak for the Senate itself, obviously — we see that person as playing the key role in managing the government's legislative agenda in a collegial and, obviously, constructive way.
Answering for the government, we would propose that sending elected ministers is a formula that we find interesting and certainly positive. Is there a hybrid version where there can be an opportunity to do both? We would be open to that.
I would want to talk to that person once he or she is appointed and, again, benefit from, frankly, senator, your view and the views of your colleagues.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I'd like to continue along the same lines as Senator Cowan.
From your answer, Minister LeBlanc, I gather that, if the Leader of the Government or the government representative is unable to answer questions, depending on the discussion with the Prime Minister, you would be willing to send a minister to every Senate question period to answer senators' questions. Is that correct?
You realize that question period is crucial, given that the government must be accountable to the Senate and answer senators' questions. That's what I did every day as the government leader. It's not an easy job, but it's an important one to the Senate.
Is your government prepared to designate a different minister every single day?
Mr. LeBlanc: That is something we can discuss with whoever is appointed Leader of the Government. Nevertheless, senator, you know how busy ministers are when the House of Commons and its committees are sitting. I can't promise that it would be possible to send a designated minister to the Senate every single day, as scheduling just wouldn't permit it. That's why, when I answered Senator Cowan's question, I said it might be possible to have a hybrid approach where the Leader of the Government could be designated as the government representative for certain functions, including answering questions, perhaps. We are genuinely open to the idea, but I don't want to give the impression that it will be possible to send a minister every single day, because we have a duty of accountability. We are answerable to the House of Commons, first, but we will happily make ourselves available whenever scheduling permits.
Senator Carignan: My next question is for Minister Monsef. Both of you spoke very highly of the Senate, its work and the calibre of senators. That makes me wonder, then, what isn't working and how the process you intend to put in place will fix what you think is broken.
[English]
Ms. Monsef: Thank you.
As I mentioned, this process is in no way meant to diminish the good work of senators past or present, but the good work of the Senate has been hampered by the perception that Canadians have about how much partisanship is affecting the chamber. Unfortunately, that negativity is at times overwhelming the true value of the work that has been done by senators.
I believe firmly that if we take that partisanship out of the appointment process, Canadians will once again begin to have the confidence that they ought to in this very important institution.
Senator Martin: Ministers, thank you for being here.
You were talking about the confidence you want to restore regarding taking partisanship out of the appointment process. I'm curious about the selection of the members of the independent advisory board and how you would ensure that there is no partisanship in that.
Specifically with regard to the ad hoc members, I'm a senator from British Columbia, and I'm aware that my premier has said that she's not supporting this process. I'm curious about appointment of ad hoc members when a province is not participating. How were the ad hoc members selected in Manitoba, for example?
I'm curious about that overall process to assure all of us that partisanship and transparency is all there for us.
Ms. Monsef: Thank you. I very much appreciate that question.
The nine Canadians who are working with us to help fill the first five vacancies are of the highest calibre. They're Canadians like you who have worked really hard to serve the people of this country. They are people who are distinguished for the service that they've given to this country and, indeed, for the world.
Huguette Labelle is chair of the advisory board. The woman has 13 honorary degrees and has been recognized for her service to the public. We have Indira Samarasekera, whose research is quite prominent, and the work she has done as a woman in academia is widely recognized.
We have individuals, like I said earlier, who hold themselves to the highest calibre and the highest standards. We have provided them with public criteria that we are asking them to assess the nominees against. That list is quite important, because it not only allows them to work within a frame, but it allows Canadians to hold us all accountable to this new process.
So we are confident that the people that this very important process is in the hands of will do justice to the impact and significance of this work.
As for ad hoc members for the various provinces and territories, this is one of the key elements of this new process. For the first time, we are inviting the provinces and territories to be part of the appointment process. We are hopeful that the provinces and territories will see that value.
I will move a little bit faster, as per the chair's request.
In instances where a province or territory is not able to participate, that's okay; we will reach out and find distinguished Canadians who are willing to take on this enormous responsibility, as we've done with Manitoba. Fortunately, we have received positive remarks from the leadership in Manitoba about the choice of the women who have stepped up to serve as the ad hoc members.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, ministers. I have three questions. I will give them in a row so you have an opportunity to answer each of them, I hope.
The first one is about the selection of the eminent Canadians who sit on the selection board. My surprise when I read the names of all of them is that none have experience in the parliamentary process, while they have to check the candidates who themselves will have to have experience. It seems to me that of the nine of them, there would have been a seat for a person with past parliamentary experience — a retired senator with an eminent list of services. I'll mention Senator Lowell Murray, for instance, or a former Speaker of the Senate. One of them in a group of nine would certainly, in my opinion, bring to the group the intimate knowledge known to appraise a candidate if that person knows the parliamentary process, the Constitution of Canada and so forth.
Second, you have listed five criteria. Are those five criteria to be at one time in the same candidate or are they exclusive? In other words, you can be a star in sports but know nothing about the parliamentary process — it doesn't matter; you're a star in sports and people like you. I use that example.
Do those five criteria have to be found all at the same time in the candidate, at one level or the other, so that when you announce the name, the public could check whether those people really meet those criteria?
My last question is about the issue of residence that you explained in your press release. I have to tell you, madam minister, that I have a problem with that, because I don't think it is for the government to determine the definition of residence in relation to the Constitution of Canada as far as the Senate is concerned. Residence is a qualification under section 23, and under section 33 it's up to the Senate to determine if a senator fills or continues to fill that qualification. So I humbly say to you that it's for the Senate to determine the residence and to make sure that each and every senator follows up on that obligation. In my opinion, you have overstepped your responsibility in relation to the Constitution of Canada as far as the residence issue is concerned.
Ms. Monsef: Thank you, senator. I noted that some of this work has been contributed by you, and I thank you for that. It certainly adds to the ambiance in this space.
In answer your question, I will refer to the impressive bio of the chair of the advisory board, Huguette Labelle. She has served for a period of 19 years as the deputy minister of different Canadian government departments, including Secretary of State, Transport Canada, the Public Service Commission and the Canadian International Development Agency.
I hope we can all appreciate the important contributions that the officials at the public service provide to the work of us elected representatives and all of you. We are confident that Huguette, with her expertise alone — the other eight bring a significant amount of experience. There are people who have served provincially as elected legislators. We believe that Huguette alone brings a wealth of experience and expertise to this particular area.
To answer your second question about criteria, yes, candidates who are here to serve alongside you will be expected to all fill the criteria.
To answer your third question about residency, we felt it was needed to clarify what we meant by "residency." We are confident that we are within the legislative framework that we need to be working within and that we are honouring constitutional requirements.
All of that said, there is a reason that we've divided this into two phases. The transitional phase was meant to allow us to not just fill those urgent seats that needed to be filled to make sure the regional representation for the provinces with the greatest vacancy was met, but we knew that we would learn from this first phase and apply our knowledge to the second phase. To that end, I encourage all of you, if you have feedback on how we can enhance this process moving forward, I hope you will reach out and share your thoughts. I would greatly appreciate that.
Senator Ogilvie: Mr. LeBlanc, you touched on a question that I wanted to put to you.
With regard to the changes that you are envisaging, those you've taken already and the impact that you see them having on the Rules of the Senate, its operation, and how they would have to be changed to accommodate the government's vision — you indicated the name change. You're going to try to accommodate some of that with the with regard to the name of the position of leader. However, it doesn't go all the way in terms of that role. There are many other aspects, such as deputy leaders. The Rules are based on a government and an opposition, things of that nature, which you indicated you're prepared to introduce legislation to accommodate.
Could you give us some sense of the extent to which, after studying this issue to this point, you've identified additional Rules of the Senate that need to be changed in the manner you're describing?
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you, senator, for the question.
You'll appreciate that it's not up to somebody who is serving in the House of Commons to come and suggest to senators how you may want to change or adjust your own Rules. We would be open, as I indicated, with respect to the statute, the Parliament of Canada Act, for which both houses obviously have responsibility and which governs the operations of both chambers or both sides of the parliamentary equation. I would be happy to work collectively or collegially to ensure that if the government brings in a bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, we at the same time fix, amend, modernize or correct whatever you and your colleagues think might be important so we could do it more efficiently as one government bill.
But I would welcome whatever changes you think are appropriate to your own Rules. We have no view on how you should change your own Rules, other than to say we will be appointing a government leader to be styled as the "Government Representative" because as we understand — and I'm no expert. There are people around this table who have far more experience with parliamentary rules and certainly the Senate Rules than I would ever have. Our view is that that person, in order to begin fulfilling his or her responsibilities in terms of the legislative process, should occupy that function.
Again, I'm just sharing my own views. I don't think we'd come to a final conclusion until we've designated this person. As I understand informally from talking with many of you around the table, there would be considerable merit in having a deputy government leader or deputy government representative appointed. We would obviously want the government representative to meet with colleagues and have a recommendation to the Prime Minister as to who might properly fulfill that function. We would be open to appointing that person, I think, subsequent to the appointment of a government representative.
The function of whip, which again is in the legislation, we won't be whipping votes in the Senate. We want senators to be free to vote as they believe their region or their particular circumstance compels them to do. Our instinct is we probably wouldn't appoint the whip function, but again, all of that would be subject to a conversation with the new government representative. I'm just offering you my own views, but subject, frankly, to that person having a chance to talk with many of you or all of you would be my hope.
Senator Batters: Minister Monsef, I noted in Minister LeBlanc's answers tonight that the Trudeau government will appoint a Leader of the Government in the Senate to conform to the Rules of the Senate and to the Parliament of Canada Act.
We have now had 12 sitting days in the Senate without any opportunity to hold your Liberal government to account. We've had three occasions with ministers but 12 days with no one. I was also shocked to see yesterday that you said this situation could endure for several more weeks.
Right now, there are no opposition members in the House of Commons from Atlantic Canada, from the northern territories, from the Greater Toronto Area, Montreal or Vancouver. There is no one from those regions to ask tough questions of your Liberal government. But in the Senate, we have opposition senators from all of those areas.
I think that it's subverting democracy not to allow us to ask tough questions for Canadians in order to hold the Trudeau government to account through Senate Question Period.
Minister Monsef, will the person selected for this position answer questions in Senate Question Period from senators on behalf of the Trudeau government?
Ms. Monsef: Thank you for your question, senator.
I, too, am impatient to meet these five Canadians who will be joining all of you. Yesterday, much like today, my hope for spring's arrival is perhaps a bit too obvious.
The piece that I wish to clarify here is that on day 29 of this government, we announced this new process. We have been working diligently and as quickly as we can to build the right framework, and we've basically hit the ground running.
With regard to the people we brought into this process, we have asked of them quite an enormous task that has never been done before. We, like all Canadians, are watching, so we respect their need to do it right and to take their time, because this is an important balance, to do it right and to do it efficiently.
Ministers have been available and have come here and have answered questions. We will continue to be available. I will share that, in fact, when this possibility came up around the cabinet table, every time one of our cabinet colleagues is getting ready to come here and to be present before you, it's a mix of nerves and excitement, because this is history in the making.
The rules, as my colleague mentioned, the flexibility and how they evolve and the hybrid models that we come up with, they're based on your needs and your feedback. The government leader, the government representative who will be here will be part of that accountability process, not just to the Senate but to all Canadians.
To wrap up, I firmly believe that what we're doing here is a great service to Canadians and to the democratic process, and I look forward to working with all of you to demonstrate that to Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I think we're all glad to see your enthusiasm. I wonder if the enthusiasm could be just a little briefer in some of your answers.
Ms. Monsef: That's my nerves, madam chair.
Senator Cools: I'd like to thank the ministers for coming before us and for their very sincere efforts and attempts to improve what they see as a situation that needs improvement.
I do not use words like "democratic government." Our system is not democratic government; it's parliamentary government. There's a difference. It means the King chooses his ministers from members of the House of Commons who are, in turn, responsible to the House of Commons.
I really want you people to succeed. I cannot tell you — and this may distress some of my Conservative friends — how happy millions of Canadians are to see the Liberals back in power. I mean that most sincerely. This is a fact of life.
Canada usually does well when Liberals are in power, and —
The Chair: Do you have a question, Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: I'm getting there.
Mr. LeBlanc: Madam Chair, don't cut the senator off. This is very good for our nerves.
We share that view, too, by the way, senator.
Senator Cools: She has enthusiasm for her work. She has to know that I have a lot of enthusiasm for mine.
I don't know if you have given this any thought, but responsible government means that the monarch, who is a full constituent part of the Parliament of Canada, has surrendered the personal and direct intervention, her personal legislative rights as a part of the legislative body, and has handed those over to her Crown ministers who, through their agency, bring about the workings of government.
You keep using the words "government representative." Here in the Senate, it wouldn't be a government representative; it would be a Queen's representative.
I am hoping that you are looking at some of the important constitutional and not so obvious but extremely subtle and very important differences, because a minister represents the Crown, the King, the monarch in the system.
You were talking about your nervousness. I'm not as nervous as you are, but I'm nervous that you may be overlooking and making a mistake in a very important constitutional matter. It is very important we deal with this.
The minister is here. It would not be a government representative. There are three constituent parts. I appeal to you to not arrest your enthusiasm but stop for a moment or two and take a look at this particular issue, because I don't want you to run aground.
Ms. Monsef: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cools.
For the record, let me note that her enthusiasm for a Liberal government is particularly notable because she sits as an independent.
Ms. Monsef: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, senator.
Senator Cools: And I always have, even when I was a Liberal; from Trudeau to Trudeau, from sea to sea.
Ms. Monsef: I appreciate you sharing your concern.
Senator Cools: We can discuss it privately, if you want.
Ms. Monsef: Part of my enthusiasm is due to the fact that I am surrounded by lawyers and some of the best of Canadian talent. I am confident that we are working within the constitutional framework that we need to be. I, too, want us to succeed.
I would just add a couple of things here, Madam Chair.
The woman who I look up to the most as a woman who served the Canadian public to the best of her ability and then beyond our borders is Flora MacDonald. What I am bringing, as many of my colleagues are, into this First Session of the Forty-second Parliament is a new perspective and reduced partisanship.
I truly believe that Canada is most successful and the world benefits most when we work across party lines and across institutions.
I was reading up on all of you. I don't know if that helped my nerves or not, but, Senator Cools, as the dean and as the longest-serving member, I'm counting on the expertise of folks like you to make sure that the kind of legacy Flora left behind, that I, too, can some day claim to have left behind. So there is a self-serving element to all of this as well.
Senator Wells: Thank you, ministers, for coming.
Minister Monsef, in December you said:
I'm confident this merit-based process will result in candidates of the highest quality being recommended to serve . . . in the Senate.
In January you said:
I believe we're on the right track in ensuring that . . . senators are there because of merit and that they will help tone down the partisanship that has hampered the effectiveness of the Senate . . . .
The second part is curious, because we're far less partisan than the House of Commons, and I think all my colleagues would agree with that and would like to note it.
With respect to the merit-based aspect, of course you may know — and you have clearly done some homework — that even since 2011, there were 15 senators who belonged to the Order of Canada. We have at least four senators who were in previous cabinets. We have senators of great merit.
Senator Kelvin Ogilvie, who just left the room, his work was incorporated in the Permanent Collection of the Smithsonian Institute, an inventor whose pharmaceutical product was recognized as a milestone of Canadian chemistry of the 20th century. I could go on.
Senator Fraser, our chair, had a number of national awards, newspaper journalism awards and is an accomplished journalist.
I am humbled to talk about anything in the CV of Senator Joyal.
Senator Patterson served as leader in the 20-year campaign that led to the establishment of Nunavut as Canada's newest territory in 1999.
I could go on and I may go on.
My question is: Of what higher merit would you be looking?
Ms. Monsef: There's a lot of merit to that question. As I mentioned earlier, this new process is in no way meant to downplay or diminish the caliber of folks who have existed here before and currently.
This is about the process. The process is a less partisan process. It is a process that is public and allows Canadians to follow step by step and hold to account individuals that will be appointed to the Senate to serve alongside you.
I want to be clear that it is the process that we are excited and enthusiastic about, and it is the process that has been reduced and has far less partisanship involved in it.
As to the longer part of your question, I take great comfort knowing that in my personal mission to tell the stories of senators who contribute so much to Canadian life that I have you, potentially, as someone to work with, and I hope that you accept that challenge, sir.
Senator Wells: In phase 1, you require a nomination by an organization for the initial senators. I have a concern. We're an independent body, and you would wish us to be more independent. Is there a concern about embedding a special interest group, a nominator, within the Senate? I have a great concern about that.
Ms. Monsef: Canadians have mandated us with the change that we are bringing forward. I want to be clear on that.
As for the nominations by organizations, that service to community and that connection to one's community is essential, as you have seen in the criteria we have set forward. What better body to ask and seek guidance from than the very communities and organizations that are working hard on the ground every day and know the people who are serving their communities and their causes in the same way?
The second phase of this process is going to open it up to all Canadians so that any Canadian that meets the constitutional requirements may apply.
Senator Wells: And the five criteria?
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wells: Thank you for your indulgence.
Ms. Monsef: I will answer that later.
The Chair: She will find a way.
The leader of the opposition is prevailing upon me to ask a very brief supplementary.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Could you tell us, as a matter of public record, which agency, institution or organization proposed and recommended the selected candidates?
[English]
Ms. Monsef: As I mentioned, this process is in the hands of an arm's-length independent advisory board. It will be up to them to provide us with a report, to share who they reached out to, to let us know what kind of response they received from Canadians, what worked and what they could do better.
I will wait to fully answer that question once I have had a chance to meet with the advisory board and hear from them as to where they're at.
Senator Frum: Minister Monsef, in the terms of reference for the phase 2 appointment process, it says:
Nominees will be asked to demonstrate to the Advisory Board that they have the ability to bring a perspective and contribution to the work of the Senate that is independent and non-partisan. They will also have to disclose any political involvement and activities. Past political activities would not disqualify a nominee.
Two questions flow from this. First, do you think Canadians understand that in your terms of reference, based on that notion of non-partisanship, the current President of the Liberal Party, the Chair of the Liberal Fund of Canada or a retired Liberal MP from last Parliament are all qualified to be nominated if they demonstrate the ability to be independent and non-partisan? How does a person demonstrate to the advisory board the ability to be independent and non-partisan? What does that look like?
Ms. Monsef: That's a great question, senator.
I will add that not only can previous participants within the Liberal Party be considered for this process, but we have opened it up to all Canadians. Whether you have been involved with the Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Green Party or any other party does not preclude you from being part of this process or being appointed to the Senate.
As your colleague mentioned earlier, indeed it is a requirement that the individuals who fill these seats alongside you are aware of and exposed to the parliamentary process. We are not precluding anyone based on partisan experience, and Canadians do understand that. In instances where they might not, there is contact information on the website for people who will clarify those for you.
I have seen in my lifetime and continue to see people who can come together, united with a common cause, and get work done. I have seen people within my own campaigns, to be honest with you, who have been able to put that aside and focus on the task at hand. We have seen, as my colleague mentioned earlier with the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying that it is possible and in fact beneficial to all of us when senators and MPs across party lines are working together to serve Canadians. That comes across in conversations and in people's previous experiences in roles beyond their partisan roles.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, ministers, for being with us tonight.
Quebec has asked for equal provincial representation on the advisory boards and a right of veto for the provinces on the final list of Senate nominees to be submitted to the Prime Minister. What is your opinion of this request?
Ms. Monsef: After each province was consulted about individuals to fill those ad hoc seats, I sent a letter asking my colleagues to provide us with feedback on how we could improve this process going forward. Quebec's feedback, as well as that of any other province — any of you — and the comments we've received from Canadians and other colleagues, we will give serious consideration to that feedback moving forward.
Senator Seidman: So you will give serious consideration to the right of veto for provinces on the final list that is submitted to the Prime Minister?
Ms. Monsef: We are giving serious consideration to all feedback that has been received, including that.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Minister Monsef.
I want to be parochial for a minute and talk about Alberta's elected senators, of which I am one. There is a candidate who was elected by Albertans and is waiting for a vacancy to come — that is Mr. Mike Shaikh — who meets all of your criteria beautifully. He's an accomplished businessperson, a very well-known philanthropist and a leader in the Muslim community. I could go on with his public service. He also happens to have the benefit of more than 300,000 Alberta voters who voted for him.
Ms. Monsef: My goodness.
Senator Tannas: In a January 22 Globe and Mail article by Gloria Galloway, there was a quote from somebody in your office that seemed to say that would carry no weight. I am puzzled by that. I think Albertans would be puzzled by the fact that he would be able to present his resumé, which he's able to do, and that final little detail of 300,000-odd people in Alberta who voted for him wouldn't be considered. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Monsef: Yes, thank you, senator.
I believe the next Alberta vacancy, as it stands right now, is 2017 or 2018.
Senator Tannas: In 2018, yes.
Ms. Monsef: And the change that we are implementing with the permanent phase is that we're opening up the process to all Canadians, not just those who have the courage to run for a position, but people who may not have the means or the liberties to run for a position.
I am sure the individual you have mentioned, who has the confidence of his community, will add his name to the pool of candidates. I'm certain that the advisory committee, who will be assessing the merit of individuals to be considered by the Prime Minister and the Governor General, will take that into consideration.
Senator Tannas: Would you expect that he might potentially receive a discount for that?
Ms. Monsef: I cannot comment on that. "Discount" is an interesting word.
Senator Tkachuk: One of my questions is on the board itself, Minister Monsef, and how they select candidates. Does there need to be a consensus among the board members before a name or names are put forward? Does majority rule? How many members are put forward for each position, and will their names be public?
Ms. Monsef: The five people who will find the nominees to recommend to the Prime Minister will provide five names per vacancy. In total, we're expecting a list of 25 names.
As to how they govern themselves within their terms of reference, we believe that these individuals are able to come to an agreement and will adhere and apply the strongest governance principles to arrive at decisions.
Senator Tkachuk: I have two more questions, if I could have the time.
The Chair: Make it quick.
Senator Tkachuk: You had mentioned, Minister LeBlanc, that "We are not sure about the whips and leader, and we probably don't need a whip." Someone has to do the work of the whip, whether you have one or not. Someone has to allocate offices and parking spaces. There's a lot of ordinary administration that takes place, as you well know. It seems to me that the two of you should know all this. We're a parliamentary system, and we have worked with political parties. If you don't have political parties, you don't have a parliamentary system.
This is a very unique experiment, I must say, but in the end we're going to have a for-government and against- Parliament, no matter what we're called. It's going to be a partisan parliamentary system in this place.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, we're into overtime.
Mr. LeBlanc: I will be brief, Madam Chair.
I don't necessarily share, senator, your characterization. There are people serving in this place as independents and I think doing so honourably. The idea that without the parties it doesn't work, I will leave that to the judgment in your chamber, to your colleagues. I can only speak to the hyper-partisan nature down the hall in the chamber where my colleague and I serve.
Don't be surprised that I didn't refer to the administrative functions of the whip. You are absolutely right. Of course I understand that. We thought that those administrative functions could perhaps be assigned to the new deputy government representative. We're hesitating to appoint a whip because the whip implies a discipline on voting. As the Prime Minister has said in the election campaign, and as my colleague has said, we believe we have a mandate to implement some of the changes to the appointments process. We think the whip function, as it symbolizes discipline in voting, perhaps was a contradiction.
So again, subject to the will of the chamber and the new government representative and whatever structures are appropriate, we would suggest that those administrative functions — as you said, parking spaces and offices — could probably be assigned by the deputy government leader, for example.
Senator Tkachuk: I just have one more, chair, on the question of partisanship.
The Chair: The ministers are leaving very soon, senator.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that.
The Chair: Other senators are on the list.
Senator Tkachuk: I got Minister LeBlanc going a little bit.
The Chair: He's not the only one.
Senator Tkachuk: On the question of partisanship, I would just like to say that we are a lot less partisan than the house. Almost all our committee reports are unanimous. They are, unless they're on a bill where we split along party lines because people have certain beliefs. I think that's normal and I think that will continue, but to say that we're partisan, I think, Minister LeBlanc, is not correct.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk.
Mr. LeBlanc: I thought it was you who was referring to partisanship, not me, but I think Senator Fraser wants to move on.
Senator McInnis: For the most part, the new senators will be selected on the basis of intellectual criteria, with the number of degrees that they have or their great achievements. This style of meritocracy will ensure that the Senate becomes, in my opinion, a club of elitists.
The Prime Minister, in standing in front of his newly sworn-in cabinet last fall, decried that this represents Canada. Do you really believe this criterion for selecting senators will represent Canada?
Ms. Monsef: Thank you for your question.
While academic achievement is important, it is not in any way included as a main criterion that individuals must possess. It is about service to one's community. It is about demonstrating leadership and the ability to work within guidelines that are ethical and with integrity.
We are not just looking for academics that bring an important perspective to the table. We are looking for leaders from the indigenous community and artists. We are looking for people from different cultural backgrounds and people who have a background in science and the trades.
What I am getting at is in the same way the advisory board is made up of people who have honourably served organizations like the United Way, artists, people who have worked to reduce poverty in this country, people who come from all walks of life, we're looking to ensure that the expertise and the voices who join yours in the Red Chamber reflect the voices that Canadians want to hear more of within your chamber, as well as within the House of Commons.
The Chair: Minister Monsef, in the December press conference where you were announcing the new world awaiting us, you said that the new senators will be appointed with the expectation that they will carry out their duties in a non- partisan and independent fashion. Could you expand on the word "expectation"? Are you going to require that they commit themselves before appointment to remaining outside political parties?
Ms. Monsef: Thank you, madam chair, for your question and for watching the conference that we held in December.
The expectation and the most say, as you mentioned, within our constitutional framework that we can have with the process is with appointing individuals. We are looking for people who have demonstrated, as I was mentioning to Senator Frum earlier, the ability to do that in their previous work.
Once they join your ranks, it is up to them to independently carry out their work in an independent fashion.
The Chair: Including perhaps an independent choice to join a caucus, who knows.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for joining us today. This is a crucial exercise, as it affects not just us, but also Canadians. You emphasized the importance of modernizing the Senate and your desire to contribute to that process. I agree, as many do, with the idea of making the institution more transparent. You are even open to amending the Parliament of Canada Act so that the Senate can become a modern and more representative institution.
One of the proposed changes, should the Senate agree, would be to modify the process for appointing the Speaker of the Senate. Senators would make the appointment, as is the practice in all modern parliaments.
If that is something the Senate recommends, would you agree to include that change? Are you open to the idea of senators appointing their own speaker going forward?
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you, Senator Massicotte. You raised two issues. You brought up the modernization issue being examined by your committee. In fact, I commend you on your leadership when it comes to Senate modernization and reform. I was quite pleased to see the leadership role you have played, with the support of your colleagues, of course. I know that you are on the new Senate modernization committee. Ms. Monsef and I would be happy to sit down and work with you informally. You could choose the best way for us to work together.
I know there is a Senate public bill on the appointment of the Speaker of the Senate. We received a formal constitutional opinion from the Department of Justice indicating that changing the appointment process for the Speaker of the Senate infringes on the Constitution. For the time being, then, I do not have the authority or ability to say that we could consider that change, through a potential amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act.
As things stand, according to the formal opinion we received, the Governor General appoints the Speaker of the Senate. Is that ideal? Is it a modern practice? Probably not, but we were told that it has to be that way right now because of the Constitution. There would have to be a discussion to determine whether there was a way to approach the issue differently.
[English]
Senator Baker: Thank you, witnesses, for recognizing the excellent work that the Senate does. As you are probably aware, the Senate committees are referenced three times more than the House of Commons is referenced in case law in Canada, and that's on the intent of legislation. It's not concerning a subject in Question Period.
Prime Minister Harper started the ball rolling by removing the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, from cabinet. That was a good move. Now you have completed the move. However, procrastination is like a credit card; it's great until you get the bill. We have gotten the bill in the Senate because here we are; we have started operations and we're awaiting your appointments.
Can we be assured that you will make these appointments with due haste? You have identified what these people will do, and you are suggesting to us, then, not to procrastinate, to change our rules and to meet the guidelines you have established.
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you, senator.
I wouldn't purport to have the presumption to suggest to the Senate how to change its own Rules. I've had the privilege of knowing Senator Baker since I was a young boy when he served as my father's parliamentary secretary in the other house. So George is like an older brother to me, and I want to tell you, senator, to see you here asking those questions warms my heart.
My colleague did say, senator, in all seriousness — and you're absolutely right — we sense the urgency. I think we regret that Parliament resumed. You'll remember we wanted to bring Parliament back quickly in December after the election to deal with a campaign commitment for a middle-class tax cut so it could be operational by January 1. That was the Prime Minister's instruction to me, to bring Parliament back in December. Many people might have waited until the new year.
So here we are, conscious of your requirements, regretting that it hasn't been done faster. But as my colleague said, we want to do the process properly, independently and rigorously. I think Canadians would be well served by concluding that process expeditiously but rigorously. With any luck, senator, those senators will be in place, the new government representative, and then we can continue the conversation, as my colleague said, on other aspects, including the rules.
The Chair: I'm going to turn to Senator Dyck. Senator Raine has withdrawn her name from the list, so the last shoehorn-in question will go to Senator Plett.
Senator Dyck: My question is to Madam Minister Monsef. In your remarks, you were saying that you expect this new appointments process will result in a smooth, more effective functioning of the Senate. I would like to know: What does this mean? How will we know when we have more smooth and effective functioning Senate? How do you intend to measure this? How do you measure it now and how will you measure it after the change? How will you know that this process will do what you expect that it will do?
Ms. Monsef: Thank you for that question.
We believe that these individuals will bring a new tone of reduced partisanship to the Senate. We believe that part of the measure of our success will be Canadians hearing and seeing more the important work that the Senate does. Once we open it up to Canadians, those who value the institutions will apply and wish to be a part of this process. I hope that together we can measure that success in the very near future.
The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc does have to leave, I gather. I wonder, Minister Monsef, if you could stay for one quick question.
Mr. LeBlanc: We're 15 minutes beyond the time. We're trying to answer the questions. We're in your hands.
The Chair: We appreciate that. I've liberated you, because you said you had a cabinet committee.
Mr. LeBlanc: The minister is coming to the same meeting I am.
The Chair: They won't have quorum without you, will they?
Mr. LeBlanc: I don't even know if there is quorum in a cabinet committee.
The Chair: I'll ask Senator Plett to give a quick question, to which you can respond in writing.
Mr. LeBlanc: We'll answer Senator Plett's question.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
Very briefly, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, the City of Brandon, the second-largest city in the province of Manitoba, their Chamber of Commerce has not been asked to be involved in this process. The Province of Manitoba is not being part of this process.
Both of you stated that you have been mandated to do this. The fact of the matter is 60.5 per cent of Canadians didn't vote for a Liberal government, so I believe there are some people who wanted a different type of a process.
Minister Monsef, you named a number of criteria — the United Way, different types of people that would be eminently qualified people. I would suggest that I could spend just five minutes and name every one of those people around this table today, and yet you say we need a new process. Where in the old process, the process that has stood the test of 150 years, could we not appoint every one of those types of eminent Canadians to the Senate the way the old process was?
Ms. Monsef: Thank you, senator.
I think we can all agree that in order to remain relevant, democratic institutions must evolve. The changes that we are bringing forward are based on a promise that we made to the people of this country that we would enhance the appointment process that leads to senators entering the chamber in an effort to restore their confidence in this very important institution.
I will once again reiterate that in no way is this process meant to diminish the good work that you do or those who have become before you. We are confident, based on the feedback we've already received, that this process is restoring some of that confidence so Canadians can see clearly the good work that is being done here and will continue to be done.
Mr. LeBlanc: Madam Chair, Senator Plett referred to the election campaign. One of the things that our leader and now the Prime Minister was most passionate about in the election campaign was defending the role of the Senate. He feels that he has a mandate to strengthen, improve and work with the Senate. He consistently and deliberately defended a role for the Senate.
The senator referred to the 60 per cent of people who perhaps didn't vote for us. Those who voted for the NDP wanted to abolish the Senate and that was not a position we've taken at all. We thought it was an irresponsible position.
We're looking forward to continuing this conversation, working with all of you.
Madam Chair, it's been a privilege to be here.
The Chair: You have been extremely patient. We have stretched your indulgence. We thank you both very much.
(The committee adjourned.)