Debates of June 13th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Appointments Committee

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I note that some members were a little dismayed as to the selection of speakers during the period for questions and comments. I would remind hon. members that normally questions and comments opportunities are afforded to members who are not members of the party that has just given the speech. It is certainly not to their exclusion. If there are not a lot of other members from opposing parties rising, then certainly members from the party the member who just spoke is part of can participate. We do it on a selective basis and try to be fair. As a final reminder, usually in a five-minute round there are occasions for only two interventions, depending on how long they take.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and to the subject of our government's commitment to and high standards for openness and transparency.

I read the motion in question with interest. It is clear to me that the motion moved in the House today is an attempt to take over the government's power to launch processes to identify candidates for officer of Parliament positions and introduce unnecessary obstacles for which opposition members will never have to take responsibility.

The hon. opposition member surely knows that since February 2016, the government has been taking measures to set up a more rigorous approach to the appointments made by the Governor in Council, an approach based on the principles of openness and transparency and, more importantly, merit.

This is an open process. Communicating with the public about potential appointments by the Governor in Council is essential to this approach. Anyone can put forward their candidacy and everyone is invited to do so. The 14,000 or so applications received for Governor in Council appointments since we implemented this new process is a testament to that.

This is also a transparent process. Governor in Council appointment opportunities and information about the appointments that are made are available online.

This procedure is also based on merit. A thorough selection process with pre-established criteria is in place to evaluate applications.

Furthermore, when ministers review a candidate recommendation, the goal of establishing gender parity and reflecting Canada’s diversity is taken into account. Candidate selection must reflect linguistic, regional, and employment equity conditions.

Of the roughly 170 appointments made through the open, transparent, and merit-based selection process, about 70% of appointees were women. This shows that we are honouring the commitment we made to Canadians to ensure that our democratic institutions reflect our diversity.

Some 1,500 positions requiring Governor in Council appointments are subject to the new procedure, which ensures an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process. We are determined to offer these positions to all Canadians.

Under the new process, a notice of appointment opportunity is posted on the opportunities website by the Governor in Council and on the website of the organization with the vacancy. A recruitment strategy is developed for each selection process when the opportunity needs to be advertised in order to reach interested candidates able to fill it.

This can be done by using an executive recruiting agency or by developing an advertising strategy and targeting interest groups, such as professional associations and stakeholders.

Candidates must register and apply online through the Governor in Council appointments website. Only applications submitted online will be considered. This ensures that all candidates interested in applying for a Governor in Council appointment are on even playing field.

We encourage all members to share this information with their constituents so that interested candidates can apply. As I mentioned, this process is completely open and transparent, and it is open to all Canadians who are interested in the advertised positions and have the required skills.

The opposition member wants an appointments process that would result in unnecessary red tape for officer of Parliament appointments, when the legislation already requires a more than adequate evaluation of candidate qualifications.

Parliament will continue to play an essential role in this new government appointments procedure, specifically when it comes to officers of Parliament. The enabling legislation concerning officer of Parliament positions requires the government to consult the leaders of recognized parties in the House and, in some cases, the Senate. Also, all these appointments are subject to parliamentary approval.

We are complying with these statutory obligations. Our government is making progress on appointments to important positions in our democratic institutions, such as agencies, boards, commissions, administrative tribunals and crown corporations.

It will take some time before the overall impact will be felt, but I can assure the House that, even if a selection process is under way, the government may make interim appointments or renew terms for positions essential to good governance or government continuity.

We have already run over 60 open, transparent, and merit-based selection processes, and over 100 others are under way to identify highly qualified candidates for many important positions across the country. We are determined to ensure that top-notch individuals are appointed to positions in our democratic institutions to ensure that they deliver excellent services to Canadians.

However, the opposition member is trying to prolong the appointments process for important officer of Parliament positions. Bringing in an additional review is pointless, since a thorough selection process is already in place to ensure that candidates are highly qualified. A selection committee reviews applications to ensure that they meet the pre-established criteria and then screens the applicants to be evaluated through interviews and written exams, as required.

When candidates are deemed highly qualified by the committee, an official reference check is also carried out to evaluate their personal suitability in greater detail. The committee presents the relevant minister with a formal opinion on the most qualified candidates based on merit. The minister then uses the committee’s opinion to finalize his or her recommendations to the Governor in Council.

As I mentioned earlier, legislation already requires the government to hold consultations about the proposed candidates and have the appointments approved for most officer of Parliament positions through a motion introduced in the House of Commons or the Senate.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have been trying to establish a couple of things for my Liberal colleagues today, and one is that the specific nature of officers of Parliament, in particular, requires that there be no taint of partisanship at all. They must be impartial to work on behalf of all parliamentarians. The most recent example is the nomination by the Liberals of a person who had very recently been elected as a Liberal and who also donated to the Prime Minister's campaign. In testimony, she admitted that she would be in a conflict of interest in investigating the Prime Minister himself.

By anyone's definition of officers of Parliament, they must be able to do their jobs. Whether it is the ethics, lobbying, or languages commissioners, it does not matter. We have not been able to establish for my Liberal colleagues that nominating people in a conflict of interest is a bad idea.

To my point, every Liberal I have heard so far has said that nominations are going swimmingly. For Canadians tuning into this, they say that the nomination process is awesome and to forget the little thing with Madam Meilleur recently, because that was an aberration. However, a report from the CBC just a month ago said that the backlog in appointments by the government is up 80%. Five months after the Prime Minister suggested that his new appointments process would clear the backlog, the problem has gotten dramatically worse. No one is questioning the idea of the nominees having merit, diversity, and all those things, but to suggest that things are going well when the backlog has grown by 80% under their process is an opinion, not a fact.

First, could we at least establish that partisanship is a bad idea for an officer of Parliament? Second, could we admit to the fact in front of us that appointments seem to be a problem for the government and it is in need of a little help? There is nothing like a little help among opposition parties and government to make things work better for Canadians.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. Any offers of help are duly welcomed.

I would like to remind him that there is a procedure already in place in our Standing Orders to refer appointments of officers of Parliament to the appropriate standing committee, in which the committee members, members of Parliament, are able to question the nominee. Then the appointment is voted on in the House, That Standing Order is appropriate and needs to be kept.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague referenced the rules concerning consultation a number of times during her speech. I want to explore the meaning of that term with her.

As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley so aptly pointed out in the House earlier, the Prime Minister's idea of consultation was a letter to both leaders of the opposition parties to say, “I've selected this person. Here you go.”

Does the member agree that is consultation in a meaningful way?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certain positions require more consultation than others. The fact remains that it is our government's responsibility to name officers of Parliament. Ultimately the responsibility, the consequences of those decisions remain with this government. While the Standing Orders allow for a meaningful examination of any nomination by the appropriate standing committee, it is the government's decision.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for highlighting our government's commitment to an appointment process that all Canadians can trust. This is why we have an appointment process that is open, transparent and merit-based.

Could the member please elaborate and explain to the House how this process truly reflects the diversity of Canadians?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in doing my research for this motion today. Over 70% of the over 170 appointments that have been made so far are women. Visible minorities and indigenous persons are also represented in that number. If it takes time to ensure we accurately and sufficiently represent the diversity of Canadians across the country, then it is worth taking that time.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has done incredible work to bring forward this motion that, as some media noted yesterday, provides an elegant solution to a real problem. I really like the term “elegant solution” because it is very simple. I will have the chance to discuss that in a few minutes.

I would first like to note that what the Liberal member said a few minutes ago was inaccurate. It is not up to the government to appoint officers of Parliament. It is instead up to parliamentarians to vote to approve the appointment of such persons, who play a major role in our system, institutions that have become absolutely essential over time. I simply wanted to clarify that. It is certainly not a government decision, even though the initial proposal or suggestion may come from the Prime Minister’s Office. We will come back to that, as it raises another sort of problem.

I would like to digress a bit to describe how our modern democracies have evolved. I will have the opportunity to explain how important it is to properly conduct the process of choosing these watchdogs for our system, for taxpayers, for citizen’s rights, and for minority languages rights.

Albert Jacquard said that we could have a very balanced society with 1% princes, 4% soldiers, and 95% slaves. After all, that worked in many places in the world for thousands of years. It was a very stable system, and there was a certain balance. The progression of all of our democratic systems was always characterized by the gradual erosion of the absolute powers of the monarch. All of the powers invested in a single individual were always withdrawn, powers that were often conferred under the pretext that the monarch had been chosen by God and could do whatever he wanted. He was the State. He even had control over the life and death of his subjects. In effect, they were not citizens, but subjects of His Majesty.

All the progress we have achieved in our democracy has been achieved by withdrawing certain powers and certain decisions from the king and putting them in the hands of other organizations or institutions. That was how we elected the first parliaments. The British nobles were somewhat tired of the king doing whatever he wanted and deciding to levy taxes at any time because he wanted to create a new army to engage in a new war. They therefore created a type of council in which English nobility, namely the aristocrats, barons, dukes, and others, held the power to authorize the monarch to levy taxes and spend money. He could no longer make the decision alone.

Moreover, we still have some traces of that perspective in our current Parliament. One of the major roles of parliamentarians is to pass laws, but they also have the role of authorizing expenditures by the executive. Also, one of the things that I learned when I arrived here is that expenditures can be approved or refused in committee, or a reduction can be proposed, but an increase in the expenditure can never be proposed. That dates back to the first parliaments, which existed to control the king’s spending. We still follow that same approach.

Royal power was then divided into legislative power, executive power, independent of the representative of the Crown, and judicial power, which could be exercised to check the choices made by the government and ensure that the rights of the people and the laws of the land were respected.

We can see that, over time, institutions were added to control the monarch or the executive branch. That created a type of dissemination of power within society, a type of distillation of decision-making. Over time, other checks and balances were added, such as the media and journalists, and thus public opinion, when we live in a democracy.

As a society, we have also created institutions capable of monitoring and controlling what the government does. That is what is done, for the most part, by these officers of Parliament that we have created over time. They did not all exist 15, 20, or 25 years ago; we will come back to that. For example, the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer did not exist prior to the previous Conservative government. Enjoy that, as it is rare for me to note good things done by the Conservatives. That position has taken on crucial importance and no one would now want to eliminate that institution. To the contrary, we want to make the position more independent, with more powers and more opportunities to do the work.

I would like to continue discussing these checks and balances by distinguishing between Westminster and presidential systems, like the French and American systems. Under presidential systems, particularly the American one, which we know a bit better, the checks and balances are enormous compared to the power that the Prime Minister can have under a British system like ours. Even though he is President of the largest, or maybe now the second largest, power in the world, the American President can face a lot of opposition from the House of Representatives, the Senate, and all the institutions that make up Congress and everything in Washington.

To illustrate, an American President could very easily face a hostile House and see his plans repeatedly blocked. He can even have a friendly House and see his plans repeatedly blocked. That is not the case here. We do not have a presidential system. Under the Westminster system, people often think that they vote for the Prime Minister, but that is not the case. They vote for a member of Parliament from one of the country’s 338 ridings. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that has the majority in the House and has the confidence of the House. A lot of powers rest with the Prime Minister under our system, to a point that it becomes problematic.

The motion by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is so important because it is part of the process by which we ensure the independence of those checks and balances and the involvement of all recognized political parties in the House in decisions regarding the best person to fill those positions. That is something.

I took a few minutes for that digression, but it puts into perspective the steps that must be taken to advance the quality of our democratic institutions. In theory, the Liberals should agree with that. We remember the Liberals’ election promises, namely that they would fight cynicism, put an end to partisan appointments, and restore Canadians’ trust in their institutions. I therefore have trouble seeing how they could now seek pretexts to object to such an elegant solution, an offer by the opposition to improve the procedure and ensure that the disasters and fiascos we have seen recently do not happen again.

What can be done to avoid partisan appointments? First, we absolutely refrain from doing what the Liberal government did in the case of Madeleine Meilleur, who was to be the Commissioner of Official Languages. The law states that the government must consult the leaders of the opposition parties. What happened, then? The Conservative and New Democratic leaders received a letter advising them that Ms. Meilleur had been chosen. I do not call that consultation. I call that a fait accompli.

If the opposition parties had truly been consulted, we would have sat down, discussed the matter, found common ground or a compromise, and chosen the best possible person for the position. No, the king decided that he was holding on to that power, while we want to share that power. Officers of Parliament are not the purview of the Prime Minister. They are the purview of parliamentarians, and thus of all Canadians. There was a total lack of consultation in the case of Ms. Meilleur.

Moreover, a person who is too partisan to be a member of the Senate was appointed as commissioner, an officer of Parliament. That is a very interesting logic. We call that backpedalling. She was a Liberal MPP and a Liberal minister, and has donated more than $3,000 to the Liberal Party since 2009. She also donated money to the current Prime Minister’s leadership campaign.

I think that the appointment of that individual had the very appearance of a partisan appointment. That was much of the problem and she realized it herself. However, it would have been good for the Liberal government to realize it earlier in the process.

To avoid fiascos like this, we would like to implement a process that will involve all recognized parties in the House. If we do not, and continue with this kind of tradition of dubious quasi-partisan or completely partisan appointments, we would be undermining the legitimacy of these officers of Parliament, as they are important. I was speaking about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but we should also talk about the Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Lobbying. These are critical positions whose duties include overseeing audits and requiring that the government show accountability and uphold the law.

Why do we need these people to be above any partisan suspicion? Because we don’t want their work to raise any doubts afterwards and in the future. If someone like Ms. Meilleur had ultimately been appointed Commissioner of Official Languages, her decisions would always be under a cloud of possible bias and tainted by partisanship and liberal affiliations. This is why we must have people who are absolutely independent, for the sake of their own work and for the future.

The motion that my colleague has put forward today is good for our institutions, but it also serves all future officers of Parliament who are appointed or elected by the House.

What do we propose? First, we recommend replacing the current appointment system—Standing Order 111(1)—with a system ensuring that when the government intends to appoint an officer of Parliament, it must provide the name of the proposed appointee to an appointments committee composed of a member from each recognized political party. This committee would have 30 days to review the nomination and may report a rejection or approval. If the committee has not filed a report within 30 days, the nomination is deemed rejected.

This is intended to serve as a safety provision to avoid delay tactics that would be unjustified, and to have a procedure that can work.

If the committee recommends approval, the nomination is then put to a vote in the House, contrary to previous interpretations by the government House leader.

In this case, the name of the person remains secret during consideration, for their protection, of course. Afterwards, if there is an agreement between the three, four, or five recognized political parties around the table, a recommendation is made and it comes back to the House. Then there is a motion and parliamentarians can vote. It is always Parliament that chooses the officers of Parliament.

A procedural deadline of 30 days is expected. We could therefore proceed with a degree of diligence to avoid partisan appointments. It would also put pressure on the government to have an appointment process that works well, which is not currently the case. My colleague recently mentioned this, when quoting a CBC article from last March.

Under the current government, vacancies are upwards of 80%, which is no small matter; the process failed in the case of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Not only have we not made any progress under the current government, the backlog has increased. In addition, in two other cases, the government cannot seem to find skilled and qualified people in the established timeframes, so it has asked the current Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner to stay on for six more months because it did not do its job and could not find any candidates.

This compels us to ask why the Liberal government would refuse a solution and a new process that would help the process as a whole. These officers of Parliament we are talking about have a real impact on the lives of our fellow citizens, on the quality of our democratic life and on taxpayers' compliance with the tax code.

I have a few examples I would like to remind members of. The actual cost of the F-35 would never have been uncovered without the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Without this vital information, how would we know whether the military equipment acquired by Canada will cost $9 billion, $16 billon or $25 billion? These are considerable sums that are not always easy to put into perspective in our daily lives, and yet they have huge impacts on taxpayers' wallets and tax rates.

In order to get to the bottom of these types of matters and to examine the government's work, the Parliamentary Budget Officer must therefore be above suspicion. Why not agree to sit with the opposition parties to come up with a consensus recommendation, if possible? The Liberals said they wanted to do politics differently, so let us all gather together, have a good talk and strive for greater collaboration, especially when dealing with such topics as officers of Parliaments.

Here is another cause for concern. The Liberal government now has to appoint a new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister is currently the subject of an investigation by the current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner over a trip to a private island in the south, a trip that would seem to be against the law, especially regarding the use of helicopters or private planes to fly the Prime Minister around. If the process is botched by virtue of the Prime Minister's Office pulling the strings and the majority government imposing its choice on Parliament, then the person being appointed to a position whose job it is to investigate the Prime Minister will be in a conflict of interest, their credibility weakened.

I would like all Liberal members to give this motion due consideration because it would be a significant improvement over the existing system in that it would be cheaper, more effective, faster, and more respectful of our institutions and all parliamentarians. It would be a step in the right direction. Would this be a completely independent committee like they have in the United Kingdom? No, not yet, but it is a whole lot better than the Prime Minister's Office, which seems to be incapable of making reasonable choices, picking its own candidates.

I hope we can reach consensus on this motion. At the moment, there seems to be some resistance from the Liberal government because they say parliamentarians would no longer be able to vote and this subcommittee would have a kind of veto power. That is completely false, absurd, even. It was never our intention to suggest that.

Let us look at the motion itself. I would like to read three short excerpts that I find informative.

...that report, which shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Committee, shall be presented to the House at the next earliest opportunity as a report of that Committee;

...that report, which shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Committee, shall be presented to the House at the next earliest opportunity as a report of that Committee;

Parts (3)(a) and (3)(b) are explicit about the procedure. Part (4) of the motion reads as follows:

Immediately after the presentation of a report...the Clerk of the House shall cause to be placed on the Notice Paper a notice of motion for concurrence in the report, which shall stand in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons under Notices of Motions....

Parliamentarians would therefore be able to vote on the adoption of the report and the hiring of an officer of Parliament. I hope that the Liberal government will stop obfuscating by willfully misinterpreting the motion and will take into consideration the collaborative approach that we have chosen to take, in the interests not only of the officers of Parliament, but of all Canadians.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I will say at the onset that I have enormous sympathy for the notion that the people we hire to the various offices that serve Parliament must have the background and the ability to do their job. In fact, I spoke at great length when I was in opposition about many of the Conservative appointments. I talked about what happened with the public complaints commissioner. What was so disturbing to me about that was that the person in question had no background in the RCMP whatsoever and only had a partisan background.

My problem here is that we have moved to appointments that have been merit-based. We look at the senators in question or, frankly, Madeleine Meilleur, whose background in official languages over 30 years is incredibly deep.

The question I put to the member is twofold. What I see this motion doing is redundant. There has been an agreement that it is in fact Parliament that makes the choice on how these officers are selected. If the committee does not have a veto—in other words, if the committee is not circumventing that privilege—but is only acting as a voice, then that is a voice that already exists in this place. Those powers are already present and already exist.

The second one is of great concern to me as well. People who do great work are sometimes in their lives partisan. That should not exclude them. They should have material and relevant experience for the post at hand, but just because they have at some point in their life engaged in public life, I do not think that should preclude them from office.

I wonder if the member can comment on both the redundancy of this motion and that point about precluding good people with strong records of service who may have at some time been involved in politics.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First, contrary to his claims, the motion is not redundant, since the current process is not working and we are instituting a new process.

If my colleague acknowledges that it is a decision of Parliament as a whole and there must be consultation, I imagine he is outraged that the leaders of both opposition parties were informed by a letter telling them the name of the next official languages commissioner. I also imagine he would be entirely open to the idea of establishing an all-party subcommittee so there is discussion and consultation, so we can have our say as parliamentarians, and so the process is not simply directed by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Second, I understand the purpose of his question. We were asked the same question yesterday at a press conference.

Is the fact that a person was involved in party politics at some point in their life sufficient to disqualify them from all positions in the public service or from the kinds of key positions that officers of Parliament hold?

The answer is “not necessarily”. There are many factors to consider, which is why a subcommittee would be valuable. The member of the official opposition and the member of the second opposition party who were at the table would be able to determine whether a candidate was eligible. They could assess whether the candidate was in a conflict of interest and whether their partisan work was intense, significant, or recent.

There are rules in other legislation enacted by Parliament and sometimes it takes several years before a person may apply for certain positions after being in government, for example. That is precisely what the subcommittee could work on.

I hope that addresses my colleague’s concerns.

In the case of Ms. Meilleur, if we had been at the table, we would immediately have said that she was frankly too partisan.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I support today’s motion. I regret that the NDP did not include a role for the parties with fewer than 12 members, such as the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, but I think it is still a good proposal for improving the present situation.

There is a little story that everyone may have forgotten: the story of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC. Under the legislation governing that committee, it was mandatory that the leaders of the official parties in Parliament be consulted. During Mr. Harper’s time, Arthur Porter was to be appointed to the position of chair of the committee. Gilles Duceppe, who was the leader of the Bloc Québécois at the time, replied by letter, in which he raised a red flag because Arthur Porter had something of a odd past.

In the end, we all know what happened. Arthur Porter was given full security clearance in the Government of Canada, made an officer of the Privy Council, and WENT down in history as a known fraudster. If one needs an example of why we need more than on-paper consultation, I doubt one would find a better example than Arthur Porter.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Green Party colleague for her remarks and her support for this important motion.

Indeed, the member has reminded us of a specific case, a very concrete example where the lack of combined effort and consultation and the failure to listen to the opposition parties resulted in an absolutely deplorable decision. Putting someone like Mr. Porter in charge of the SIRC, knowing his past, his sympathies, and also his connections, was a bad decision that could have had serious consequences.

Yesterday, in a very moving speech, one of our Liberal colleagues called on us all, saying that we sometimes had to rise above party divisions, listen to one another, and be able to work together much more constructively and collaboratively. Today’s motion reflects that, and I would like to see the Liberal members support it.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

So far, in today’s debate, I have found it unfortunate that the government members, including the last member who spoke and asked a question, seem to be conflating all appointments made by the government of Canada, by the Governor in Council. They are putting them all in the same basket with their new appointment process. All Governor in Council appointments will follow the same standards, whereas in my opinion, two standards should apply.

Certainly, when we talk about the parole board, the social security tribunal, or port authorities like the Montreal Port Authority, a different standard can apply. However, we are talking about officers of Parliament.

Can my colleague distinguish between all these Governor in Council appointments, which relate to various positions with various responsibilities that require various kinds of experience, and officer of Parliament positions? The government should distinguish between these two kinds of positions. Why should officers of Parliament be subject to a different standard from the one that applies to the other Governor in Council appointments?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question, which is very timely.

We must indeed distinguish between apples and oranges, and between the various positions and their responsibilities and duties, when it comes to this government's appointments.

Let us be clear. I am going to name seven of the eight officer of Parliament positions. We spoke of them earlier, they are the Auditor General, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Lobbying Commissioner, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who will shortly also be an officer of Parliament.

There is one more, the Chief Electoral Officer. That is the person who coordinates, manages, and oversees our entire electoral process, the way we choose our members of Parliament, the men and women who represent the 35 million Canadians, here in the House. What a complete disaster it would be if someone had been appointed directly by the Prime Minister’s Office, using its majority in the House to impose its views on all parliamentarians. We would have a partisan individual in a position that manages general elections. To avoid that catastrophic scenario, we absolutely have to revise our processes and ensure the complete independence of officers of Parliament.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Sudbury.

I am pleased to participate in this debate today on a motion to change the rules of the House introduced by a political party that recently fought tooth and nail in defence of the position that the rules of the House should not be amended by way of a motion.

Even though this motion is fundamentally flawed, it gives the House an opportunity to address the question of the role played by officers of Parliament in our system. These individuals must perform crucial and important functions. I want to point out to the House that the expression “officer of Parliament” is also used to refer to the people who report to parliamentarians, which means that they are responsible for the work of Parliament, and that this is what distinguishes them from other senior public servants and officials of Parliament in particular.

In addition, it is useful to ensure that everyone here clearly understands certain fundamental concepts that underlie our discussions today. We must make sure that everyone has the same understanding of the essential facts. For that purpose, I want to put this debate in the relevant broader context it deserves. I want to focus on one very specific aspect, that is, the place held by officers of Parliament in our system of government.

Let me use one example with the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. It is important to take this big-picture-view because the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner does not operate in a unique legal or procedural environment, nor does the commissioner operate in a vacuum.

The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is appointed and then performs his or her important role under many of the same conditions as the other agents of Parliament. While each agent of Parliament has a unique mandate, every one of them plays an important role in our democracy. Every one of them has some elements in common that are worth keeping in mind today. They have become important vehicles in support of Parliament's accountability and oversight function. These roles have been established to oversee the exercise of authority by the executive, in other words the Prime Minister, cabinet, and government institutions. It is very clear that they all do precisely that.

For the longest time, there was only one such agent of Parliament, that is, the auditor general, which was established just after Confederation, in 1868. In 1920, Parliament put in place the role of chief electoral officer to ensure an independent body was in place to oversee our elections. It was not until 1970 that the third agent of Parliament was created when the commissioner of official languages was established under the terms of the Official Languages Act of 1969.

To recognize the changing role of information in the government and among citizens, the positions of Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner were created in 1983. In 2007, we witnessed the creation of two other positions, that of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The Commissioner of Lobbying is the most recent addition to the list of officers of Parliament, having been established in 2008.

While each has a unique set of responsibilities, I have heard this entire group described as “guardians of values.” Each of them is independent from the government of the day. Each of them is mandated to carry out duties assigned by legislation and report to one or both of the Senate and the House of Commons.

Our government recognizes the importance of the work that agents of Parliament do. We recognize the need that they reflect the high standards that Canadians rightly expect.

One key way that our government has demonstrated that recognition is by bringing in a new and rigorous selection process for these positions. We have taken the same approach as we have across other Governor in Council appointments. These appointments are being made through open, transparent, and merit-based approaches.

What does this mean in real terms for officers of Parliament? First of all, there is the application process itself. Notices are posted on the Governor in Council appointments website. The government also publishes a link to that notice in the Canada Gazette while the application period is open. Under the new process, everyone who feels qualified to fill the responsibilities of positions, whether for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or any other vacant appointed position, can let their names stand by registering online.

The government is very mindful that we want the best people possible for these important roles. This is why each selection process has its own recruitment strategy. Sometimes an executive search firm may get a contract to help identify a strong pool of potential candidates.

We also sometimes announce the vacancy of a given position to the target communities, such as professional and stakeholder associations, or establish a dialogue with them.

That process eventually helps find a highly competent candidate. However, for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, after finding a candidate, the government is required to consult with the leader of each recognized party in the house, and the appointment must clearly be approved by a resolution of the House.

We know that, in practice, the person appointed is invited to appear before the appropriate committee, which reviews that person’s qualifications. Parliamentarians therefore have public opportunities to have a say on these important roles.

Only after that, after the appointment is approved by the House of Commons and the Senate, is the officer of Parliament officially appointed by decree.

The government's appointment process for officers of Parliament is open, transparent and merit-based, and the same is true for other Governor in Council appointees.

The Prime Minister personally committed to bringing a new style of leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. He committed to raising the standards of openness and transparency within the government. He committed to adopting a new style of leadership.

Those commitments are very clear in the new processes. They aim to give the most qualified Canadians the opportunity to serve their country by being appointed by the Governor in Council or otherwise.

Those commitments are proof that strict rules increase the trust Canadians have in elected officials and appointees and in the integrity of policies and decisions made in the public interest.

Officers of Parliament are pillars of our democracy. Their role is essential, as they help us, as parliamentarians, to hold the government to account. I think that we have a system that works well, and I think that Canadians can see that it works well.

That is one of the reasons why I feel that this motion is not needed. The proof is there. Public institutions that are more solid, more open, more transparent, and more accountable help the government remain focused on the people that it should be serving. That means better government for Canadians. That is something that I am very proud to defend and to pass on to future generations.

There is something else as well, and I referred to it at the very beginning. We recently proposed an open discussion on modernizing the rules of the House in the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. We were blocked for more than 80 hours over several weeks, because the opposition was not interested in having that discussion. Now they present a change to the rules through a motion requiring a majority vote, when they said very loud and clear that that was not admissible.

What exactly is the purpose of the motion before us? It begins by replacing Standing Order 111.1. I will quickly read Standing Order 111.1 to show what we would lose:

111.1

Officers of Parliament. Referral of the name of the proposed appointee to committee.

(1) Where the government intends to appoint an Officer of Parliament, the Clerk of the House, the Parliamentary Librarian or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the name of the proposed appointee shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee, which may consider the appointment during a period of not more than thirty days following the tabling of a document concerning the proposed appointment.

Ratification motion.

(2) Not later than the expiry of the thirty-day period provided for in the present Standing Order, a notice of motion to ratify the appointment shall be put under Routine Proceedings, to be decided without debate or amendment.

The opposition members want to scrap a system in which candidates are referred to appropriate committees with the expertise to assess each candidate as part of their duties and in favour of referral to a small subcommittee made up of just four members, which is itself a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This subcommittee will not have the expertise to deal with issues involved in appointing officers, but it will have a veto, which will be undemocratic, unlike Parliament's veto power. It will also deprive the other 334 MPs of the right and opportunity to have their say about a particular candidate.

It is easy to see that this motion was not thought through, that it is contrary to the values the NDP champions with respect to the role of this kind of motion, and that it will not improve our appointment system.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention in this debate.

He will not be surprised to hear me asking the same question I asked my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie because he repeated exactly what the government has been saying all day long, that the new process is perfect, that everything is just fine, and that it applies to everyone. It applies not only to candidates to the social security tribunal, boards of directors of crown corporations, and parole boards, but also to officers of Parliament, as though this process were perfect for every one of these instances.

Does my colleague not think that there should be a higher standard and a different process involving Parliament for officers of Parliament? These officers serve Parliament above all. Does my colleague not think that there should be two different standards?

There are dozens of traditional Governor in Council appointments made daily. I do not think that is an exaggeration. However, appointing an officer of Parliament is a rare occurrence and merits a different standard, in my view. Does my colleague agree?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the opposition because a second standard already exists.

Not every appointment requires the approval of the House of Commons. Only officer of Parliament appointments do. To me that is a very important standard. The appointment of an officer of Parliament is approved by Parliament.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the member's comments were on how things should ideally work and not how they actually did work on the last appointment.

I would correct him on a few points, one of them being the consultation that is required by the procedure with members opposite. Clearly, they have indicated that they were not consulted but received a letter. That is not consulting. I am sure that when the Liberals were going to implement electoral reform, they did not just send Canadians a letter saying they wanted to use preferred ranked ballot and they were going to implement it. That is not a consultation.

The proceedings were not open and transparent. The heritage minister contradicted what Madame Meilleur had said, there was no disclosure of the meetings with Gerald Butts and Katie Telford in the PMO's office, and it was not revealed that two previous employees of Madame Meilleur now worked for the heritage minister who was choosing her for the position. The openness and transparency that was needed in this process was not present. Would the member agree?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the process the member is discussing, it went to a committee of the House of Commons and the other place. It obviously did not go quite according to plan and that person is not going to be the commissioner, so the process worked quite well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am astonished at the claim that the appointment of Madeleine Meilleur went well. All of us in the opposition benches are in awe of the breadth of—I am searching for a word, and “chutzpah” comes to mind—the chutzpah of the claim that this was an example of things going well.

For poor Madeleine Meilleur, her reputation in the course of all this was not served well. The partisanship of the appointment drew gasps from non-partisan observers of parliamentary appointments. It certainly should not be the case that someone who has had some involvement with a political party is forever not allowed to take a position of trust in a non-partisan sense, but going from Graham Fraser, who had no suggestion of partisanship about his appointment, to Madeleine Meilleur was a disservice to her and to the process.

I wonder if the hon. member could think of a process that might have gone better for the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say the appointment went well; I said the process worked. We saw what happened.

There are always possibilities of changing processes, but the process we have will produce very good results for all appointments going forward.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate today to speak to the motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He asserts that Standing Order 111.1 should be replaced and should include the creation of a subcommittee on appointments of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the subcommittee should comprise one member from each of the parties recognized in this House.

It is valuable to ensure that everyone in this chamber is clear about some of the fundamental elements that underpin our discussion today. It is helpful to ensure that we are working with a shared understanding of core facts. To that end, I want to put this debate in the context of how this motion proposes a fundamental shift in authority in the appointments of the officers and agents of Parliament positions that are subject to Standing Order 111.1.

Effectively, this motion suggests removing the authority of the elected government to make decisions with regard to these appoints and handing it over to the opposition parties, actually giving them a veto.

I would like to focus specifically on this very topic: the elected government's authority and its responsibility with respect to these appointments. It is important to look at this authority and responsibility in the broader context of how the Governor in Council appointments process works.

In February 2016, the Prime Minister introduced a new approach to the Governor in Council appointments, which supports selection processes that are open to all Canadians who are interested in applying. Indeed, a cornerstone of this approach is the government's commitment to Governor in Council appointments that achieve gender parity and that reflect Canada's diversity.

I also cannot emphasize enough that under this new approach some 1,500 Governor in Council opportunities can be seen by all Canadians and all parliamentarians. Included in this are the appointment opportunities for important independent leadership positions, including officer of Parliament positions such as the clerk of the House and the parliamentary librarian. Selection processes are open, and communication with the public is central to the approach.

The processes are transparent. Governor in Council opportunities and information regarding appointments made by the Governor in Council are available online to the public. Selection processes are based on merit. There is a rigorous selection process, with established selection criteria. The government has now completed more than 60 selection processes and has 100 selection processes under way.

The process for the selection of each Governor in Council appointment is based on the selection criteria that have been developed and advertised. Assessment of candidates is evaluated against those criteria.

Under the new process, everyone who feels qualified to fill the responsibilities of positions can apply online. Only candidates who apply online, however, will be considered. This creates an even playing field for all individuals interested in Governor in Council positions and who want to put forward their candidacy.

This is an appointments system that is designed to bring forward highly qualified people.

For officer and agent of Parliament positions, there are legislative provisions that involve Parliament. There are also statutory requirements for these positions whereby one or both houses of Parliament must be consulted, and approval of one or both houses is required before an appointment can be made.

In recent weeks, what defines consultation has been a topic of considerable debate in both chambers and in the public. The governing legislation for each of these positions is silent on the nature and scope of this consultation. This government has consulted by writing to the leaders of the recognized parties in one or both houses, as required by statute, providing the name of the government's proposed nominee and encouraging comment from the leaders.

I would like to remind this chamber that on May 29, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on an earlier point of order by the hon. member for Victoria concerning the consultations conducted in a recent nomination process.

Let us be very clear. While consultation is a first and important step in the parliamentary process, it is not the only one. The appointment of an officer or agent of Parliament must be approved by resolution of either one or both houses. Before that can happen, the nominee for the position is traditionally invited to appear before the appropriate House committee or committees. These appearances are forums where members can delve more deeply into the proposed appointee's credentials and qualifications and for the committee to provide a recommendation to the House.

This is all currently provided for in the Standing Orders and allows for a more diverse perspective, as opposed to referring each time to the same group of committee members.

At the end of the day, however, the government, through the Governor in Council, has the responsibility to make that decision.

The member's motion being debated today essentially proposes an opposition veto that would remove the right that all members have to vote on an appointment of an officer of Parliament, regardless of the committee's recommendation. This cannot, and should not, be delegated to a small subcommittee of four members of Parliament.

Robust and more open, transparent, and accountable public institutions help the government remain focused on the people it was meant to serve. Strong rules enhance the trust and confidence of Canadians in our elected and appointed officials and in the integrity of public policies and decisions.

This motion proposes the very opposite of openness, transparency, and accountability, which is why I cannot support it.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had time to hear a few snippets of my colleague's speech, as I just came from the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which I am a member of.

On the topic of appointing commissioners, specifically the official languages commissioner, subsection 49(1) of the Official Languages Act compels the government to consult the leaders of the official opposition before appointing a commissioner.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on the fact that Madeleine Meilleur, the government's choice for the position, said that she was told back in April that she would be the next commissioner, in a call from the Deputy Minister of Justice. The opposition leaders were not informed until sometime in May.

Does my colleague think the current process is working? It appears to be breaking the law.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to look at how far we have come.

We used to have a process whereby the Prime Minister alone selected the appointees. The Liberal Party decided to bring in an open and transparent process that anyone can participate in. A third party then conducts an independent evaluation and provides a short list of possible candidates. The Prime Minister's Office and the minister then choose the candidates that could be appointed. The process works.

The member for Victoria even raised a point of order in the House and asked the Speaker's office to rule on whether the process had been followed. The Speaker issued a ruling, and yes, the consultation process was followed, so the process is working at this time.