My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that the appointment of the new Information Commissioner might be the most topical and timely issue that we have to deal with, for the simple reason that we might want to consider, as a committee, some of the grievances we've heard about the appointment process to date.
I spoke to the current Information Commissioner. The posting to serve notice that a new Information Commissioner was going to be appointed went up on the government website for exactly seven days. There was no publishing of it in the Gazette; there was no nationwide advertising or notice served that interested applicants could come forward. The current Information Commissioner was so horrified that he personally phoned half a dozen people that he thought might be interested, to alert them to the fact that they had seven days to apply for this seven-year appointment at $250,000 a year. Most people would want a little more time to make application for such an important life-changing situation.
I'm thinking that rather than wait until the new Information Commissioner is appointed and bring him here for the token review that committees do--they ask him if he's ever been convicted of beating his wife, or whatever--I think our committee should get proactive and insist that the process stop in its tracks and that a proper posting and notice be served nationwide, even if it means extending the current commissioner for a month or two months, and do this correctly. I say this in the context of Bill C-2. The Federal Accountability Act changes forever the way appointments are made and does away with patronage. The only reason I can think of for having such a short period of notice is that there's a pre-approved applicant in the minds of the government and they want to reduce the pool of people that they have to consider. It's completely contrary to the idea of casting a wide net to get the best applicant, with transparency and accountability and all the buzzwords we're so used to.
I think perhaps I would speak in favour of making the first order of business to review the appointment of the new Information Commissioner, but actually go further and review the appointment process of the new Information Commissioner and perhaps intervene with a strong recommendation that it be reconsidered.