Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few comments.
The government has a transparent process, as has been alluded to already by Mr. Bachrach, which ensures proper consultation with user groups and the vetting of candidates based on the makeup of each board that we are a part of—this one in particular.
We recognize that issues have been raised by the witnesses here at committee when it comes to filling board vacancies on a faster timeline. I think that goes without saying. We've seen that with many boards and agencies throughout the years, but the solution to this shouldn't be that the board is automatically able to appoint a candidate.
Appointments are a long process. They take some time because they're subject to consultations, strict checks and balances, background checks, conflicts of interest and security. This amendment seems to circumvent some of that.
To some extent, I understand, however, because I have found myself in the same position with some of the boards and agencies that I deal with almost on a daily basis, with the need to expedite and be timely on appointments.
I think we're hearing from our witnesses that six months is a bit too tight of a timeline, considering the steps we are required to complete for any given appointment. We would like to see this extended to one year, which we think is a more reasonable time frame.
Let's all remember that the boards of directors are composed of different types of representatives, including user class and nominees from various levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.
If we were to move this subamendment forward, I think it's important to keep the scope to user class, directors only. That way, we wouldn't be putting limits on nominees from any level of government, which is important for representation on the board and, obviously, for all Canadians.
For this class of seats, consultations with user groups are required of the minister, and I think that's a fair thing that we would want to see the board do before making any decision.
Another thing to consider is that we'd need to make sure there's adequate notice that this is going to happen. For example, let's say that a federal nomination is very close to being confirmed but will take a few days past the timeline we set with this amendment. Is the board's decision going to be automatic, six months and one day into the vacancy?
I think this would also help to incentivize the minister to expedite the process, obviously. If he or she knows that the board is going to look to appoint someone imminently, this could be the push that's needed to get the regular appointment process over the line. I think, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that that's Mr. Strahl's intent in bringing this forward.
The last thing I'll state before I present a subamendment proposal is, for any appointments that happen via the process, let's make sure the same parameters around security requirements and removal for cause are in place. This should be consistent for any member of the board, regardless of how they're appointed.
We'd like to propose, therefore, Mr. Chair, a subamendment to make sure all this is included.
I'm hoping that the clerk is taking note of it, because it does get very granular.