Government Operations Committee on March 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp. Your time is up.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I'm very pleased that you came before this committee today and we actually had a chance to hear you. Our time is short, so I'll keep my questions moving quickly.

Since the government decided to deep-six the public appointments commission, there have been over 1,000 appointments made to various boards and government agencies. What role does the Privy Council have in examining any or all of those appointments?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

It has a role at two levels. For all the appointments, whether they're full-time or part-time, for heads of agencies or members, we do a sort of due diligence check. An appointment comes in as a recommendation from the responsible minister. We do a due diligence check to ensure that the appointment satisfies the terms of the enabling legislation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The recommendation comes from the minister?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Yes. The responsible minister for the organization makes recommendations for appointments to agencies, boards, commissions, and crown corporations. For deputy ministers and diplomats there is a different process. I'll focus on the agencies, boards, commissions, and crown corporations.

For the heads of agencies, prior to having the ministerial recommendation we run a selection process. We advertise the position at a minimum in the Canada Gazette and on the Governor in Council appointments website. Often it's advertised in trade publications or newspapers. When we know it will be difficult to sort of beat out good candidates from the bushes, we hire a headhunter. We announce it and run it like any selection process.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

So who decides in the end?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

A selection committee is formed to examine the people who apply. It conducts interviews and comes up with a short list of qualified candidates. It basically tells the responsible minister that from all the people who applied, these are the ones who are qualified for the position.

The selection committee will often say who they consider to be the most qualified, but the minister makes the final determination as to who he or she wants to recommend to cabinet for appointment. That's where we get the recommendation. We do the due diligence, and then it goes to cabinet.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I'm interested, because when we look at many of the appointments, people are connected to the Conservative Party. I don't think there's a big issue if someone has given some money to a party. Everybody has given some money to political parties. People have given money to me and I don't think they're necessarily New Democrats. To me it's not necessarily a determinant.

There are certainly key people put into positions where questions are raised because we don't have a public appointments commission. For example, Michael Burns, the AECL chair, was the former chief fundraiser for the Alliance Party. Ronald Barriault, who was chosen to be on the Nuclear Safety Commission, was a failed Conservative candidate.

Those are serious positions. Would the recommendations for those positions come from the minister, or would they come through some kind of headhunting service? Would you use a headhunting service in that case? How were these people chosen for those positions?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

For members who are not the heads of agencies, we don't run selection processes--not for all of them. Some agencies, like the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the National Parole Board, IRB, Employment Insurance, and CPP, run selection processes.

If they're part-time positions where people meet four times a year and are paid a per diem of $400—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But AECL chair is a pretty serious position, and we have someone who was a chief Alliance fundraiser. How did he get that position?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

I don't remember offhand the specifics of the AECL chair, but we normally run a selection process for chairs and CEOs. We announce the position and receive applications. We have a selection committee that considers the applications, conducts interviews, and makes a recommendation to the minister on those who are qualified for the position. The minister then makes a determination on which one he or she wants to recommend to cabinet.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The minister makes the decision at the end of the day.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

The minister does not make the final decision. The minister makes the decision on who to recommend to cabinet, and cabinet makes the final decision.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Do I have time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

You still have time.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Excellent. Thank you.

I guess the big issue with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was the creation of a sense of a legitimation crisis in the public service, in that our Prime Minister said there was a threat to human health and that threat to human health was directly related to the fact that a Liberal appointee and the Liberal Party apparently were “jeopardizing the health and safety and lives of tens of thousands of Canadians”.

I'm not asking you to comment directly on Ms. Keen's position. But if we are in a situation where a Prime Minister can say that someone appointed by the previous government is a political hack, how does the Privy Council ensure that the present people being appointed by the government, who might be former fundraisers and candidates and so on, are not political hacks and that the public can actually have confidence in the workings of government? Does the Privy Council lay down any strict guidelines here in the absence of a public appointments commission?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

When a position becomes vacant, when we announce the position, we set out the selection criteria and the necessary qualifications for the position. Those are set out looking at the enabling legislation and the history of the organization. We talk to the responsible department that oversees that organization to get their feedback on what we're looking for that position. In setting out the qualifications, we're setting out exactly what's needed for the person to head that organization. Then it's a matter of trying to attract interested candidates who fulfill those selection criteria and appointing somebody who is qualified.

We don't look at whether or not that person has made political donations. We're public servants. We don't look at what past activities that person may or may not have had with whatever political party. That's neither here nor there for us. We're just looking at whether this person has the qualifications to fulfill the selection criteria.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

This is my final question. I'm just looking at one of the most entertaining booklets I have, which is the Conservative election platform, where they state that they will make qualified government appointments. They state:

The Liberals have repeatedly appointed insiders, in some cases completely unqualified, to important public offices. Liberal candidates and MPs have received appointments as heads of Crown corporations, board members, and ambassadors.

A Conservative government will:

• Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and confirmed through a secret ballot of all Members of Parliament, not just named by the Prime Minister. This appointment process will cover:

- The Ethics Commissioner

- The Auditor General

- The Chief Electoral Officer

- The Information Commissioner

- The Privacy Commissioner

- The Registrar of Lobbyists

• Establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards, commissions, and agencies, to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted.

• Prevent ministerial aides and other political appointees receiving favoured treatment when applying for public service positions.

My question is simple. We've heard nothing of the public appointments commission since it was deep-sixed. Is the Privy Council working with the government in any capacity to restore and live up to the commitment they made in the election?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

With respect to the agents of Parliament whom you enumerated in quoting from that passage, the Accountability Act provides for the new appointment provisions for those agents of Parliament. So that's been done.

With respect to the appointments at large, as I've said, we've run more than 100 selection processes while this government has been in power, and we're aiming to increase the scope of positions that are covered by these open selection processes.

We have an office of 35 people to manage a population of 3,000 GIC appointees. There is a physical limit on how many selection processes we can run in parallel. We went by order of priority, with heads of agencies as the first priority. We're running selection processes for the heads of agencies, CEOs, and chairs of crown corporations. We're encouraging organizations such as VRAB, IRB, and the Parole Board to run their own pre-qualification process to select qualified individuals who can then be submitted for consideration by the government.

At the end of the day, what matters is the quality of the appointment being made and the quality of the person. I don't see past political activities as being a bar for being qualified. The question is, does this person have the right background for this position?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That's not what it says in the commitment to the public appointments commission. Is the Privy Council moving towards the public appointments commission, or are they not? Are they just going to go with the old way of doing business?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Basically, since the attempt to establish the public appointments commission, we endeavour to be ready to move into a system where there's a public appointments commission overseeing things.

There was work that was done in the public appointments commission secretariat. Peter Harrison was in that position for a while and did a lot of preparatory work. We have two people there now who are preparing draft codes of conduct and preparing the terrain, so that when a public appointments commission is appointed, we'll be in a position to react very quickly to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

This will end our committee meeting. We thank you for being patient in waiting and for appearing before us.

The meeting is adjourned.