Government Operations Committee on March 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We have Mr. Kramp's motion on the table at this time. I don't believe he's accepted Madame Bourgeois' proposal.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I appreciate the intent of Madame Bourgeois coming forward and trying to find a way to resolve this. While I personally have no difficulty getting together and seeing if we can forge a direction forward on this, this is a very complex, difficult subject. As such, to have it again and again and to try to translate it from Madame Bourgeois to another member who might not be there, and back and forth...I think this does need the full examination of the entire committee.

I thank you for your intent to try to bring this into the queue, because it is important, it's crucial to the Government of Canada and to the Canadian taxpayer. I think it does need the whole committee--I really do--otherwise we're just going to be going back and forth. I hope we could, at the first available time in committee, recognize that this should be one of the priorities of the committee to deal with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madame Folco, you have a point of order.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

It's really a point of information.

On the orders of the day, I see that committee business is from 9 to 10 a.m. and that from 10 to 11 a.m. we have a study of Governor in Council appointments. Considering that it is now 10:37 or so, I wonder whether we could come to finalize the committee business and move on to the second item on the agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

That's not really a point of order; it's a point of information. We are debating Mr. Kramp's motion. Before we can do anything else, we have to deal with that motion.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

There have been some comments made by members opposite about Mr. Kramp's motion, especially with respect to accrual accounting. It seems to me that some of the members here are sucking and blowing at the same time. They're saying on one hand that there's a lack of transparency in government, while the Auditor General has said on numerous occasions that one of the reasons we don't have a real transparency in government is because we're not on accrual accounting. It's a way of understanding the financial operations and the management of government. For members to just dismiss accrual accounting as some sort of boring discussion, an unimportant thing, shows a profound lack of understanding. If they really want to get into a more transparent and understandable picture of how government operates and to get good reporting of what is happening with the dollars and cents that are spent on behalf of taxpayers, let's get to accrual accounting. Let's get the process moving.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm actually shocked that there would be members opposite who would just dismiss accrual accounting as a boring thing and we don't want to deal with that. It's not something really jazzy or so on; it's not a--

[An hon. member]

I spend lots of time on accrual accounting.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's the very point I'm getting at. This is the lack of seriousness on the part of members opposite. It's not worthy of a ten percenter. What they want in a ten percenter is some scandal or some witch hunt to get out there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Kramp wants to say something.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Chair, with regard to the motion again put forward asking for the four meetings per se, and Mr. Angus' motion to extend one more meeting after the break, I'm certain this government and this side of the committee would be amenable to that—of course, with the proviso that we come back to do our four meetings on accrual accounting thereafter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We passed the original motion; now we're on Mr. Kramp's motion.

Can I call the vote on Mr. Kramp's motion?

Mr. Holland.

[An hon. member]

I've forgotten what Mr. Kramp's motion is.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I've enjoyed all this filibustering and whatever. I'm having a hard time following what it is about, too. Maybe they just don't want to hear from the next witnesses.

Because I think accrual accounting is an important issue, I would suggest to Mr. Kramp that I would welcome a ten percenter on accrual accounting. He just sent a ten percenter into my riding attacking Mr. Dion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

This is not a debate about that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I would welcome one about accrual accounting if he wanted to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

Can I please call the vote on Mr. Kramp's motion?

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Can we now move to listen to the people who are here, please!

We'll ask our witnesses to come forward.

Thank you very much.

May I remind you that we now have before us two members of the Privy Council Office, Mr. Marc O'Sullivan and Mr. Paul Shuttle, to discuss order in council appointments, one of the issues referred to in a motion passed by this committee.

Welcome to both of you. I'm sure it's been very interesting for you to sit in the background and listen to this long debate, but we do have time for you to give us a statement if you wish, and then we will open it up to questions and comments.

Mr. O'Sullivan.

[Marc O'Sullivan, Acting Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Special Projects Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm with the senior personnel secretariat in the Privy Council Office. We provide advice and support to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister, and cabinet in all matters pertaining to Governor in Council appointments.

I'm pleased to be here today with my colleague, Paul Shuttle, who is the assistant director of legal operations for the Privy Council Office.

Based on the committee's motion of January 29, 2008, I understand that members are principally interested in hearing testimony on issues relating to Governor in Council appointments to independent arm's-length agencies, and also about the public appointments commission.

I have a very brief opening statement on these issues. Afterwards, we would be happy to answer your questions. I hope you will understand that we are not in a position to delve into the specifics of the Linda Keen matter because it's now before the courts. Nevertheless, I hope we can provide useful information more generally on these questions.

Governor in Council appointments are either for a fixed term or an indeterminate period and their tenure is either “during good behaviour” or “during pleasure”. Appointees who hold office during good behaviour may be removed by the Governor in Council for cause. Appointees who hold office during pleasure may be replaced or removed at the discretion of the Governor in Council.

Pursuant to the Interpretation Act, appointments are deemed to be during pleasure, unless otherwise expressed in the enactment, commission or instrument of appointment.

The selection process for these positions is the same, irrespective of their tenure, as the government's aim is constant: to attract highly-qualified persons to head its various agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations.

These positions are advertised, as a minimum, in the Canada Gazette and on the Governor in Council appointments website. In some cases, executive search firms are also hired as part of the recruitment strategy. Selection committees interview candidates in order to identify the most qualified persons for the government's consideration in making these appointments.

The process which cabinet follows before it decides whether or not to remove an appointee from office is determined by the rules of procedural fairness and, where applicable, in legislation.

In the case of “at pleasure” appointees, it is not necessary for the government to show cause but it is required to notify the appointee of the possibility of removal from office and provide that person with the opportunity to be heard.

The procedural requirements to remove a “good behaviour” appointee are similar. However, in those instances, cabinet would have to have cause before it could terminate the appointment.

The Federal Accountability Act provides that the government may establish the public appointments commission to oversee and report on the selection processes for appointments by the Governor in Council to agencies, boards, commissions, and crown corporations. I would point out that the commission's mandate does not, under the legislation, extend to removal from office.

As you know, the commission was established administratively by order in council on April 21, 2006. Prior to the passage and coming into force of the Federal Accountability Act, the government appointed three members for the commission and nominated Gwyn Morgan to be chairperson. As you know, on May 16, 2006, this committee did not support Mr. Morgan's nomination, following which the three members of the commission tendered their resignations.

Nevertheless, in keeping with its commitment to appoint qualified persons to public office, the government has conducted more than 100 open selection processes to fill key positions since taking office. Moreover, selection processes are run to find qualified candidates for positions such as citizenship judges and for agencies such as the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and the National Parole Board, to name two examples.

At this point, Madam Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We'll start with Mr. Silva for seven minutes.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much. I want to also thank the witnesses for coming forward to our committee.

In terms of the appointment process, there are a couple of things I thought important to find out. How many people have been revoked or terminated from their appointments in the last two years?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Revoked or terminated? One moment, please.

At the Canadian Wheat Board, it was Mr. Measner who left. There was a change of leadership. There were positions that were eliminated. There was the position of ambassador of the environment, Allan Amey. The Law Commission of Canada was wound up, so there was Monsieur Yves Le Bouthillier. There were some resignations as well, but those are not terminations. There was also—I'm sorry, this is not on my list—I believe the case of one deputy minister as well, who in December 2006 had his order in council removed. There were simply no further appointments in line for the person and the order in council was passed to remove him. I'm just trying to remember the name. Mr. Scott Clark was the other person I can remember.

Those are the ones I can think of.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

All right.

I have to be careful, I guess, with the questions I ask because both of you, I believe—Marc and Paul—are civil servants and are not partisan, political.

[A witness]

We're public servants, yes.