Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to say something that perhaps our guests here today don't feel comfortable saying and that everybody knows. I suspect one of the key reasons for vacancies is that as soon as someone accepts an appointment or proposed appointment from a political party or government, the media Googles their name and does everything they can to find some connection: Did they ever join a political party? Did they ever donate to a political party? Did they ever have any business with the government? Did they work for a political party? Did they work for the government?
Then they drum up any connection, however loose, to the politicians or to a political party, as if there's any shame in belonging to a party, which there isn't. In fact, to me, it's a key part of citizenship. People are reluctant to put their names forward, and that has to be a key reason for vacancies.
Another reason is that there have been inappropriate appointments that were not monitored closely.
I arrived here last October. I wasn't here in 2004, but we saw a number of key appointments from the previous government of people who had to step down or were fired for outrageous office expenses. There was David Dingwall; there was Alfonso Gagliano, who was recalled in relation to the sponsorship scandal; there was Michel Vennat, fired from the Business Development Bank of Canada; Jean Pelletier, fired as chairman of VIA Rail. All of this had to do with matters of perhaps entitlement or matters related to the sponsorship scandal.
In 2006, we had a new government. We had a new process based on transparency and merit, which you have administered.
Back in the 1980s, I read a book by Jeffrey Simpson, from the Globe and Mail. At the time I thought it was the definitive work, and I think it probably still is, on public appointments. He said that parties can make appointments and that there's nothing wrong with them as long as they're merit-based. Merit is what the system is based on: are they qualified to do the job? A prime minister and a government need people on the agencies, boards, and commissions who want them to succeed. They have to answer to the voters for successful implementation of a platform and an agenda, and you need qualified people who want them to succeed.
So you have those things working for you; you have a guide for ministers now, a process in advance to let the ministers know when people need to be reappointed; you have consulted with other jurisdictions on best practices; you have a new public accounts commission; you have a code of practice. I know now that if a constituent calls me who is interested in a public appointment, I can send them to the website. I say, “Go to the website and read it. If you think it's a match for your jobs and skills, please apply for it.” I think that's a great, open process. You've also been able to say that vacancies have been reduced and appointments have been increased. I think you deserve to be congratulated on administering a new system.
I have a question for Mr. Goodman, though. Is it possible that you have set the standards too high? I'll tell you why. I have a constituent who used to be on the board, for I think almost 10 years. He did a thousand cases and hearings. He had good written reviews. He said that he'd happily come back and help get rid of the backlog, but they asked him to write this test again.
My question to you is, why would you ask someone who has a good record on the board and who had been there for 10 years to rewrite a test?
