Debates of June 13th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Appointments Committee

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not allowed to sing in the House of Commons, but the best answer to my colleague's question comes from the animated film The Lego Movie.

The words from The Lego Movie are, “Everything is awesome, everything is cool”. Everything is not awesome. This is not the be-all and end-all. There is a requirement for consultation. Clearly consultation involves the ability to say no. We all understand that, and that has to happen.

This has happened in other areas. The Speaker was at one time appointed with pro forma consultations with other party leaders. That changed into real consultations and finally to elections. We are clearly on our way through that process. I would be happier if the government did not have to be dragged along, kicking and screaming. It would be more dignified, but I am hopeful that in the end we will achieve genuine consultations on the appointments of officers to Parliament.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for splitting his time with me today. I will admit that I might not speak to this issue with the laser-like precision of my hon. colleague, but I will certainly speak to the point.

On the surface, the point of the motion appears to be a reasonable attempt by my NDP colleague to clarify or bring into question a more transparent process. However, at this point we are still assessing the situation. We heard from the previous speaker that there may be some discussion with respect to a potential amendment coming forward.

Why are we dealing with an NDP opposition day motion to make the selection of officers of Parliament a more open, inclusive, and transparent process than clearly has gone on in the recent history of this Parliament? It is because the House of Commons was paralyzed over the course of the last three or four weeks, as was the Senate, with the appointment of Madam Meilleur. That became an important issue because of the government's talk about its open, merit-based, and transparent process for appointments. This one was anything but.

Madam Meilleur had donated thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party in the last election. She was an Ontario Liberal cabinet minister. She donated to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. We were dealing with the official languages commissioner position, which is a non-partisan independent officer position selected by and in consultation with Parliament. In the case of this appointment, anything but had happened. As a result, because of the attention of the opposition and media to this issue, Madam Meilleur was forced to step away from the appointment process. She did the right thing because her credibility certainly would have been tainted had she been appointed.

However, it speaks to the broader issue of the fact that the government thinks it can do anything it wants around here. I believe the government floated a trial balloon with respect to this appointment process, and I have said that publicly. The reason why those other officers of Parliament positions had not been filled to this point, in spite of the fact that the government has known for months and in some cases even a year that those positions would be vacant, was because it was trying to see if it could put a partisan Liberal person into what was typically a non-partisan independent position of Parliament. Had this been allowed to occur, we would have seen the dominoes fall on these other positions. I believe, as I believe members on this side of the House do, that we would have seen Liberal Party donors and insiders being proposed as appointments to those positions of Parliament.

I will give the hon. member for Calgary Shepard credit for often saying that what the Prime Minister and Liberal government were looking for was not an opposition but an audience. The same would have been true for the officers of Parliament positions. They are the ones who hold the government to account on spending, on ethics, on lobbying, on elections, and so forth. Historically, like the opposition, they have played a very important role in Parliament with respect to consultation on the appointments of these officers of Parliament.

Earlier, the government House leader talked about this open and transparent merit-based process. The Liberals are using these talking points, saying that they have somehow changed the system to make it more open, more transparent, and more merit-based. However, we are seeing, and the Meilleur example is just one example of several, Liberal donors, Liberal insiders and Liberal Party members being appointed to these important positions.

I will give the House a few examples.

Jennifer Stebbing was appointed to the Hamilton Port Authority. She was a former Liberal candidate for Flamborough—Glanbrook. She has already announced she will seek the Liberal Party of Canada nomination in 2019. Johnna Kubik, a federal judge, donated 26 times to the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Francis McGuire, who was appointed to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, donated 23 times, totalling $30,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada. This is what we are up against.

For all the talking points, for all of the talk about merit-based and being open and transparent, the Liberals are back to being exactly like the old Liberals. They want people's money and they will think about putting them in a position. That does not work when we talk about independent, non-partisan officers of Parliament. They are independent for a reason.

It is not so much merit-based as it is amount-based. How much does one give to the Liberal Party of Canada for consideration of appointment to one of these positions? We have heard the narrative change. The Liberals are talking now about positive politics, that they are doing things differently. It is anything but that right now.

Why is this important? It is important because it is imperative that those people tasked to watch over the actions of the government have liberty to act freely and to tell the government when it is right and when it is wrong. Oversight is about that.

The officers of Parliament must also be able to tell the Prime Minister and the government when they need to meet, not the other way around. The shroud of secrecy of when the Prime Minister meets with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner must be torn away and with it the ability of the Prime Minister and his friends in the PMO to set the agenda of not addressing these types of complaints. There has to be a level of independence.

Those who sit in the PMO are so out of touch that they do not hear how the answers sound penned and muted, and how it can be so unbelievable that a simple question cannot be answered simply. We see that all the time in this place.

The motion before us today would do two things.

First, it would give the Prime Minister time to reflect on his ways. This is not about “sunny ways”; it is about a fair way by which officers of Parliament are selected and given the opportunity to serve Canada in a manner suited to the position.

Second, the motion would allow the Prime Minister and his friends in the Langevin Block to be aware that we are the opposition and that other Canadians are watching. They will be watching to see if he, his staff and cabinet understand that Parliament has a job to do and so do the officers of Parliament. Let them do the job they are asked to do.

The year 2019 is much closer than the Prime Minister thinks. If the Liberals continue down the path of this partisanship, of the appointments of Liberal insiders, party donors, donors in cash-for-access schemes, Canadians will remember that. If they are not thinking about it, certainly those of us in the opposition will remind them of the fact that the Liberals are back to their old ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem I have. Let me take the specific example of the RCMP public complaints commissioner.

I remember Paul Kennedy. He was tough. He asked hard questions of both Liberals and Conservatives. People knew he was going to give them the straight goods. He was thrown out by the Conservatives. He was replaced by somebody with no experience whatsoever in that domain. His only experience had been the fact that he was involved in ancillary matters that had nothing to do with the RCMP, but he had been a big Conservative donor. That is just one example.

We could talk about the partisan appointments, the raft of them that the Conservatives made at the end of their mandate. To the hear the sanctimony from the other side is a little rich.

Somebody being involvement in public office should not preclude he or she from further public service. However, what the individual must demonstrate is aptitude, capacity, ability, and experience within the domain he or she are in. The fact that somebody once donated to a party is not the point.

Let me ask the member opposite about the scores, the mountain of appointments of individuals who were appointed without qualification, without relevant experience, and who had made Conservative donations. How does he square that against the comments he has made today?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one needs to look to the words of the member's own Prime Minister, about how he said he would do things differently, that it would be open, transparent, and merit-based. However, the government has proven to be anything but. If we look at the list of those appointments, many of them are Liberal insiders, Liberal donors, Liberal cash-for-access attendees, yet the member puts blames on another government. That is what Liberals do. They do not accept any responsibility. All they do is blame others.

When the Liberals say they will do something differently and they do not, the easy thing to do is to play the blame game. They are blaming everybody else. They should accept responsibility. That member knows I am right.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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

What is interesting about the process and what members are forgetting is the argument that the Liberals have often used: since many Canadians are politically active, will they all have to be disqualified because they participated in politics in some way in the past?

To come back to Ms. Meilleur's case, she was an MPP and minister less than a year ago. She did not even complete her term in office. She could therefore have been appointed to a position by the Prime Minister while she was, in theory, still finishing her term as an MPP, a position that she left for family reasons.

I do not want to focus on just one case, but I would like to come back to the comments that my colleague just made about blame. It is easy for the Liberals to rise and talk about the past. However, we, in the NDP, have a concrete suggestion to try to improve the process and prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

Could my colleague elaborate on the importance of accepting that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have made mistakes in the past and of moving forward with a sound process? That would save candidates a lot of embarrassment, and it would ensure that we have quality candidates that all parliamentarians approve of, candidates who would be in a position to properly serve Parliament and Canadians.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the onset of my comment, I said that, on the surface, what the NDP was proposing seemed reasonable. When we look to fill the positions of officers of Parliament, it is very clear those positions should be non-partisan.

In the case of Madam Meilleur, the member is quite right. She indicated that she wanted to spend time with her family. Then, all of a sudden, the ball started rolling. She met with, and she admitted this, members of the Prime Minister's staff, namely Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, trying to do a back-end loop into the position.

It is important we be open and transparent and that members of Parliament are involved in the process. What the NDP is trying to propose sounds very similar to the type of process that perhaps goes on in the United States when it vets cabinet secretary positions.

The more open, the more transparent, the less likely it is for Liberal influence in these matters. That will best serve Parliament and best serve Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am pleased to rise to what I think is a very timely motion addressing an issue that has been preoccupying this place for a number of weeks, particularly surrounding the nomination of Madame Meilleur to the post of Commissioner of Official Languages. That was an example of partisanship gone completely amok. It is not quite clear from members on the other side of the House what the line of argument is in terms of its justification.

Sometimes it sounds as if they are saying there has always been partisan appointment, so it is okay and we should get over it. We are all just supposed to pretend that is okay. Then there are other lines of argument that say perhaps slightly more compellingly that people should not be penalized for their public service in the past. I think it is the case that people who have served publicly and in partisan roles in the past can occupy some posts—not as independent officers of Parliament, though. There is a much higher threshold.

Partisan appointments of people simply not qualified for the job are not okay at any time. Sometimes it may be that people have served in a partisan role before but they are qualified for a particular position and have demonstrated that they can act in non-partisan ways, and that may be acceptable for some positions. There are a lot of different positions to which governments appoint, but to pretend that someone that partisan, who is still actively partisan, who used partisan connections to be nominated for a post, and that post is not just any of those government appointments, but is meant to serve not the government but Parliament, as an independent officer, is too much. The government has made many appointments, some of which have been Liberal partisans, and these appointments have not preoccupied the House for weeks at a time.

That one was particularly offensive because of the extent of the partisanship and the particular role that person was being nominated to serve. This motion tries to ensure that, for those roles that are for positions that are meant to serve Parliament independently, and not the government in its mandate, there be an appointment process that meaningfully consults the opposition. That is in the legislation for the Commissioner of Official Languages, that there be consultation, but there are no mechanisms to specify what gives meaning to that consultation. We saw that, and we know from testimony by the House leaders of the two recognized official opposition parties and their leaders that they were not consulted, that they got a letter saying this is a fait accompli, that the government wanted them to know, and that we were moving on.

That was problematic because I do not think that was intended by the legislation in the first place, so there is a question of the spirit of the law. It also was problematic because at the end of the day it did not work. The provisions in that legislation that say the opposition parties have to be consulted in order to appoint independent officers of Parliament are not just about some letter of the law; they are about garnering the appropriate moral authority for the appointment that the government wants to make, so that person can be seen by all parties in this place as someone who can be respected and independent in the role.

What that consultation provision means is that it is incumbent on the government to come up with a nominee who receives the approval of those other parties, so that person can perform the role. In the absence of that approval by opposition parties, that person will not be able to fulfill the role. In fact, what the events of the last week or so have shown us is that the person may not even be able to be successfully appointed to that role, because any potential nominee with any integrity and credibility would know that, by the time the nomination process blew up that badly and the opposition parties were that opposed to the appointment to that position, the nominee would not be able to do the job effectively. If the nominee cared a whit about the office to which he or she were nominated to be appointed and the function he or she would be asked to perform in that office, the nominee would have to withdraw. It is a shame on the government that the nominee had to make that call because the government was either too blind or too partisan to see it.

Congratulations, finally, to Madame Meilleur for having seen that she was never going to be able to do the job that she was being asked to do. Shame on the government for not realizing that fact itself and for pressing on, for whatever reasons it had, which are still unclear, and insisting that someone who clearly would not be able to perform the role of an independent officer of Parliament be appointed to that role anyway.

It is surprising to me, frankly, that a lot of members who were elected under the Liberal banner of change, transparency, and accountability, many who did not know Madame Meilleur or have any idea of her existence, would be willing to put their privilege of representing their constituents on the line in the next election to defend the PMO's attachment to Madame Meilleur. That has been interesting for me: the extent to which Liberal backbenchers were willing to rally around a person they did not know, simply because she had a personal relationship with Gerald Butts. That is quite unfortunate and speaks volumes about the extent to which Liberals really need to come around to the responsibility of their own office.

What New Democrats are trying to do with this motion is provide a way for Liberals to do that, because their own government refuses to do so. It would be a good idea for them to rally behind this kind of motion that would help take the politics out of these kinds of appointments by ensuring that the meaningful consultation already foreseen in some of the legislation for these positions is given teeth and that there actually is opposition agreement before the nominations go forward. That would make life easier for them, as they would not be putting their political credibility on the line for the sake of the personal relationships of staff in the PMO. If I were in government, I would certainly appreciate not having to do that, and I would be uncomfortable having to do that. Liberals have been doing that very publicly for weeks and are only now not doing it, to the extent that they are not, because Madame Meilleur herself had the wherewithal, finally, to withdraw her own nomination.

I recommend this to Liberals as a way to solve a problem that their government is creating for them at home in their own ridings, whether they realize it or not. It is similar to the problem that was created when they borrowed the cash for access schemes from the Wynne Liberals in Ontario. When they decided to import that practice here and grant preferential access to government in exchange for high-price tickets to fundraisers, it was something they did that I am sure many of the Liberal backbenchers did not foresee and did not think they were coming to Ottawa to defend. This is not necessary in order to ensure the survival of the Liberal Party and make sure its coffers are full. There is a lot of potential for them to get legitimate donations and not sell access to ministers in order to raise money, so why many backbench Liberals are willing all of a sudden to get behind it and call it an acceptable practice, I do not know.

New Democrats are offering them an out for at least one of their problems. What we have heard today is that they are not interested. Why is that? I do not know. First, the government would have the power of nomination, which is a considerable power. The only people who would be discussed for these positions are those who are, in the first place, put forward by government. That is a significant influence the government would have on the process. This is hardly throwing up their hands and leaving it to opposition parties to decide who will be in these positions.

Second, if the committee accepts the government's recommendation, Parliament has the opportunity to affirm it or reject it with a vote. The idea behind a rejection of a nomination not coming to Parliament is simply to show that it is incumbent upon the government to work well enough with opposition parties in advance to find someone on whom all parties can agree. It is not consensus at the committee, either. Whether there are three, four, or five recognized parties, it is a subcommittee. It has to vote on it. Even if a majority of the government and opposition parties agree on a candidate, it will go forward, there will be a vote, and presumably the party or parties who did not agree will get to express that in the House. That is the point of the vote.

It does not require unanimity between the government and opposition parties. All the motion says is that the government has to work with at least enough opposition parties that one other party agrees with it. That is not a high threshold, but it is better than what there is now, where it is the House leader who will be determining it. The Prime Minister has recused himself from naming the next conflict of interest commissioner, as if that were a high watermark for integrity, and handed it over to the very person who defends him every day in the House when we talk about his ethical lapses. However, I digress.

Suffice it to say that this would be a much better system than what we have now and a step in the right direction. I hope at least the Liberal backbench sees fit to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there is not even a quorum in here to hear, from the government side, this great and important motion that my colleague's party has brought forward today. One of the things that troubles me the most about this whole partisan appointment thing is the lack of openness and transparency we have seen through this whole thing, from the heritage minister contradicting testimony from Madame Meilleur and contradicting what the opposition parties have said about not being consulted, to the evasion of answering any of the questions that we have brought to this. Openness and transparency are fundamental to making sure we have a non-partisan, independent oversight. Could the member elaborate on how the recommended new process would make things more open and transparent to Canadians?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of the trick of having a truly transparent and open process is involving the other parties concerned in a meaningful way, so that in their decision-making they have the information they would need, and this is foreseen by that, and that there is an appropriate forum for real discussion, so that when there are disputes it is not just, “We sent you a letter and you got the information”. If we do not like it, what are our options then? The options are to raise it in question period, to raise it in supply day motions, or to take it to the media. However, at that point that is not a real consultative process. That is then an airing of grievances about a process gone wrong.

Establishing a subcommittee would create a forum for discussion and provide the information that people from all parties would need in order to be able to assess the qualifications and the independence of these folks. I would remind the House again that this is about appointing independent officers of Parliament, people in positions meant to serve all of Parliament, not to implement the mandate of government. That is an important difference. I do think that this proposal in its very nature would lend itself far more to openness and transparency, something we have yet to see.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is critical is that our motion today deals with simply the officers of Parliament. I am concerned as well with all appointments. Pro forma, other appointments are to be referred to a committee, but with a majority Liberal government I do not think that, so far, my committee has reviewed a single appointment, which is what we are supposed to be doing as parliamentarians.

We are talking about officers of Parliament, which include the Auditor General, and under pressure the government finally agreed to make the parliamentary budget officer also an officer of Parliament. These are officers who advise everyone in this House. Every member of Parliament, including all of the Liberal members, is accountable for holding the government accountable for spending. Does the member not agree that it is absolutely critical that we have independent, qualified analysis so that we can deliver one of our most critical roles, which is to hold the government accountable on spending?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to my colleague's question is yes, it is important. However, an important aspect of that independence and getting that independent advice—aside from the person's qualifications and aside from whatever the person's background is, preferably less as opposed to more when we are talking about an independent officer of Parliament—is also the trust of parliamentarians on all sides of the House. That is someone to whom parliamentarians are going to be going. Parliamentarians are going to be, in some cases, providing the officers information about what they are doing or thinking, which they want to remain confidential. The parliamentarians want to know that they are getting objective advice that is not designed from the outset to protect a particular party. In this case that would be the governing party, and in most cases it would be the governing party because it controls that appointment; at least, that is how it is right now.

What is foreseen in this motion is an attempt to not just get the best-qualified candidate, although that is important, and to not just to assure candidates' independence in the sense of seeing what their background was and whether it is credible to think that they can act independently. The point of that is so that all members of this House, regardless of what side they sit on, can trust that officer with the information they are going to provide in order to ask the questions that they want to ask and also to trust that the information they are getting back is not designed or does not have information left out in order to protect the interests of any one particular party. Trust is the important thing. We saw that break down with the Meilleur nomination. All members could see that as a result of a lack of trust, that person was not going to be able to perform her duties.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter into debate on this important opposition day motion. Why do I say that? We are talking about independent officers of this House. What is the role of the independent officers? Really, the role is to ensure that the job and the mandate of the officer is done in a non-partisan fashion that not only provides confidence to parliamentarians around their work and how they carry out their mandate but also gives confidence to the public, to Canadians, that the government is functioning as it should be. It is a watchdog position that gives confidence to Canadians about how this place is functioning. If members do not think that is one of the most important aspects of that job in a democracy, then I do not know what is.

I am new to this chamber and I watched in awe how things unfolded. I learned how the language commissioner situation came to be and I watched day by day as information came forward to further reaffirm how the process and the appointment went sideways. For the government to somehow get up and justify the process is absolutely astounding to me.

I know I am a newbie, but I have been around the block a few times, one might say, and on the consultation aspect, I think everyone in this House would agree, including the government side and even the Prime Minister, that simply writing a letter to the leaders of the official opposition and the third party opposition is not consultation. When the letter's contents were “and here is the appointment that I have made”, we all know that is not consultation, so let us not try to pretend that it is.

Here the process has been so tainted that the candidate has withdrawn herself from this process. That is to honour ultimately the integrity of that position and the role that it needs to carry out in this chamber, and the importance of it. If the candidate can recognize this, surely the government can recognize the flaw in the current process on which it has embarked.

The purpose of this motion is to fix that into the long term so that we do not go down this road again. Democracy is too important. Accountability is too important for us to muck around with this process.

I know people look at British Columbia and call us the wild, wild west, especially given the latest election process and what is going on with a minority government that is likely not sustainable and will likely fall. Then things will unfold and people will say, “My goodness, only in British Columbia.”

That may be so, but let me say this: I spent 19 years of my electoral life in the provincial legislature in British Columbia, both in government and in opposition. I have been a cabinet minister and I have been in opposition, rendered to an opposition of two members in the legislature, so I have been around the block a few times.

Strange as it may be in British Columbia, we actually appoint the officers of the legislature by committee, with representation from all the different parties. Of course, at that committee the majority comes from the government side. We recognize that. That is what the government gets to do, but at that committee, all of the applications that come in for the particular office for which the position is open are vetted. Then people will go through a process of short-listing. Then they will select the candidates for interviews at the committee, and then they will make a decision, a unanimous decision, that will be recommended to the legislature, to the Speaker, who will than bring that matter back to the legislature for a final process.

That is how we do it in the wild, wild west in British Columbia. I have sat on those committees at different times for different appointments. I will not disclose details because all of that is in camera to protect the applicants.

It is like a job interview. It is a human resources process. We all go through that, and all of the work is done in camera so no one's privacy is jeopardized. We get into deep debates about who is the right candidate and who is not, but at the end of that process, more often than not we come to agreement. When we do not and there is no unanimous decision, then the process is hung and the committee has to strike another committee to go through the process again. Sometimes people withdraw; some reapply, and so on. That is how it goes.

The importance of that process is in ensuring that whoever is appointed as an independent officer of that legislature has the confidence of all the parties. That is ultimately the goal, and it must be the goal. That is how we ensure the independence of that officer. Otherwise we taint and compromise that officer and their work, and that would not be okay in a democracy.

Watching my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in this Parliament, I am always amazed, and I am not just blowing sunshine up somewhere. I watch him in awe, because he works so hard to bring the parties together, to try to advance things that are good for our democracy. He places that value above partisanship and all else, and he does it with grace and conviction. He believes in it and works hard to try to achieve it.

That is the spirit in which this motion is being tabled. He is proposing that all recognized parties sit on a committee to look at candidates the government puts forward to ensure the individuals are not tainted in any way, shape, or form, in reality or in perception. That is absolutely critical to the success of these officers in carrying out their work, because they need to be above reproach in every single way. For Canadians to have confidence in their work, we need to be able to say they were vetted by all parties and everyone agreed that they were merit-based and non-partisan, that they are appointments we can all be confident about. That is why it is so important to do this work.

The motion is not over the top. It is not what we do in British Columbia, and if it was up to me—and people say there are moments when I am definitely not compromising—I might have proposed a British Columbia approach, but we are not. We are not even going that far. All we are saying is that we should bring everyone together to vet this process to instill confidence in the appointments. That is a true consultation process.

The Conservatives put forward a potential amendment that would say to the government that even in rejecting a candidate, they could still advance that person to bring the appointment before the House. That is really extending the olive branch. There is an art here in trying to make this work to create an approach that is acceptable to everyone, and most importantly to bring forward an approach that is better than what it is today, one that would reaffirm confidence in the appointments of these officers so that Canadians know our Parliament is functioning as it should be and that when those appointments are made, those individuals who carry out their mandate will not be compromised in any way, shape, or form.

With that, I am going to close. I urge all members of the House to think deeply about this motion before us. I hope that members will find it within themselves, in the name of democracy, to stand up and vote in support of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that under the current process, the nomination of any officer of Parliament must be first tabled in the House, and it is then considered in the appropriate committee, which can have the appointee appear before it.

The final decision is always subject to parliamentary approval. To give a small subcommittee the ability to veto the appointment of an officer of Parliament, as proposed in this NDP motion, without having it voted on by the whole House of Commons is undemocratic.

Could the member please comment?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the government members have read the motion wrong. It is not the case that the committee could override the government's decision without having it come back to this House for a vote. That is simply not the case.

I urge the member to actually visit the motion. It is long—I get it—but it is worth a full read. Instead of using the talking points offered by the government, the member should read the entire motion. There are five points to it, and it does nothing that the member suggests.

On the question around the other committee, if the government is saying the other committee works, then how did the language commissioner's case happen? How did it happen? How did things get so tainted in that process? Clearly, the government's process as the Liberals have outlined it does not work.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is under investigation by several of these independent officers of the House. Clearly he cannot be in charge of the replacement of those who are going to investigate him. He has recused himself, which I think was right.

Now he has delegated one of the appointments to the government House leader. She has been defending the Prime Minister every day, so she should recuse herself as well. I would argue that every Liberal Party member has a vested interest in the outcome of those investigations, so it cannot be just a one-party solution.

I wonder if the member could comment on how this proposed process would be an improvement on that by getting all-party support.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises the exact points that create the problem that the government refuses to see with the current process.

When that happens with issues around conflicts of interest, with vested interests by government members, with the Prime Minister being investigated, and these officers will be and are charged with investigating the matter, it creates a huge conundrum and, most importantly, the kind of process that speaks to the need for change.

Right now, this is not happening. The government is resisting it. The motion would actually get the government out of the box that it is stuck in. There is a saying in politics about not digging oneself in deeper and that when there is an out, we should take the exit and go where it goes. This motion offers exactly that.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are mixing up two issues. One is whether the current process is the best process. I acknowledge that I believe that the opposition should be involved in the process of short-listing candidates.

However, we are now talking about the proposal, and the parliamentary secretary is absolutely right. As an attorney, I read this motion, section 5, and it says:

Immediately after the presentation of a report pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order which recommends the rejection of the appointment, the proposed nomination shall be deemed withdrawn.

On the other hand, section 4 says:

Immediately after the presentation of a report pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order which recommends the approval of the appointment, the Clerk of the House shall cause to be placed on the Notice Paper a notice of motion for concurrence in the report....

There is clearly a distinction in the motion: if the recommendation is no, there is no vote in the House. The NDP should revise its motion to make it clear what it really intends if that is not the case.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's comments. That is exactly what the Conservative member, by the way, is proposing to clarify. If people feel that it is not clear enough, that is being entertained at the moment and my colleague is looking at it. I hope that members from the government side will enter into this conversation to make sure that the change they require would be in the motion accordingly.

I think it is absolutely essential, even if changes are made to the motion, that members remember that this is about the appointments of independent officers. Should not each officer always have the support of all members of the House? The committee process is the first step.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

I am pleased to take part in this debate today. The motion, while flawed, does give the House the opportunity to discuss the important roles that officers of Parliament play in our parliamentary system. These people are focused on very critical and important functions.

I would like to point out that the term “agent of Parliament” is also used to describe individuals who report to parliamentarians, thereby, emphasizing that they carry out work for Parliament and in many respects are responsible to Parliament, and as a means to distinguish them from other officers and officials of Parliament.

However, 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 all working with a shared understanding of core facts. To that end, I want to put this debate in the larger context that it deserves. I would like to focus on a very specific topic, which is the place of agents of Parliament in our government system.

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 and to be vehicles through which oversight of our public institutions flows. It is very clear that they all do precisely that.

For the longest time, there was only one such agent of Parliament. That was the position of the Auditor General, which was established just after Confederation in 1868. In 1920, Parliament put in place the role of the 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, thanks to the Official Languages Act of 1969.

Recognizing the changing role of information in government and among citizens, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Office of the Information Commissioner were both established in 1983. By 2007, we saw the establishment of both the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The Commissioner of Lobbying is the most recent edition to the agents of Parliament, having been established in 2008. He or she plays a pivotal role in ensuring access to public office holders by lobbyists is appropriate and as prescribed by law.

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 play. We recognize the need for them to 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. 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 these positions 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 a recruitment strategy. Sometimes an executive search firm may get a contract to help identify a strong pool of potential candidates. Sometimes it involves advertising or reaching out to targeted communities, such as professional associations and stakeholders.

This process eventually leads to the identification of a highly qualified candidate. However, in the case of officers of Parliament, there is also a requirement that once the government has identified a candidate, it consult with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons. Let us be clear. The current process requires that such appointments are subject to parliamentary approval.

In practice, the nominee is typically invited to appear before the appropriate committee to review his or her qualifications, so there are a series of public opportunities for parliamentarians to have their say on these important roles. Only after the approval of the appointment by the House of Commons and/or the Senate can the order in council officially appointing that agent of Parliament go forward.

This process for government appointments ensures that the results are open, transparent, and based on merit for agents of Parliament and for other Governor in Council positions.

The government House leader mentioned this in her remarks, but it merits repeating. The Prime Minister made a personal commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. He committed to setting a higher bar for openness and transparency in government. He committed to a different style of leadership. This appointment process is another example of the openness this government has committed to and is delivering on.

These commitments are evident in the new processes to ensure that Canadians of the highest calibre have the opportunity to serve their country through Governor in Council and other appointments. These commitments recognize that strong rules enhance the trust and confidence of Canadians in our elected and appointed officials and in the integrity of public policies and decisions.

Agents of Parliament represent key pillars of our democracy. They play essential roles in helping us, as parliamentarians, hold the government to account. We have a system that works well and that Canadians see is working well. This is one of the many reasons the motion is unnecessary.

It all adds up. Robust and more open, transparent, and accountable public institutions help the government remain focused on the people it was meant to serve. That means better government for Canadians, and that is something I am proud to protect and pass on to future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is honourable that we want to have an open and transparent process, because that is what it needs to be for the benefit of Canadians.

How can we say that what has just transpired here is open and transparent, when the heritage minister contradicted what Madame Meilleur said; when the heritage minister contradicted what other members of the House said; when they did not disclose that Madame Meilleur had special meetings with Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, which the other 72 candidates did not have; and when the Minister of Canadian Heritage has two of Madame Meilleur's employees working in her office, and that was not disclosed until it came out later? How is that an open and transparent process?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an open and transparent process. If it was not, these types of questions would not be coming forward.

It is important to recognize that there are many different ways to address these issues. The process that we have in place has been working for us and it helps us to get a better-qualified candidate. That is the point of this to begin with.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very troubling to hear government members defending the current appointment process and alleging that there are opportunities to raise questions, when in fact the only opportunity is through question period or by us using an opposition day to raise these issues. That is not an open and transparent process.

We need merely look at these comments and the so-called open and transparent consultations with first nations to see where the trouble is if this is what the Liberals believe to be genuine consultation and accommodation.

The proposed process today is that before bringing the nominee's name to Parliament, there would be genuine open and transparent consultation on a number of candidates. Is that not what is really needed? We have to remember that we have a majority government, and from time to time we will have majority governments. What kind of fair process is it when all members are supposed to have the opportunity to have somebody that they could trust to hold the government accountable?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that every party actually recognized that Madeleine Meilleur was one of the best, if not the best, qualified people for the job. That came across. We heard that from the NDP and from the Conservatives. They made it not an issue of her qualifications but of other issues.

I keep hearing that because she withdrew her name, she knew better than everyone else. I will say that because she was highly qualified, she knew enough to not let it become a distraction for the position. That is one of the reasons she pulled her name out. On top of that, the non-stop bullying of this person was reprehensible.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the qualifications that was obviously a problem was partisanship. The officers of Parliament cannot be partisan. They must be impartial. Is that a fair thing to ask for? Yes, of course it is, because they do not work for one party or another. They work for all of Parliament.

The problem with Madam Meilleur's appointment, and I would extend that to the Prime Minister's judgment in nominating her in the first place, was that she would be in a conflict of interest, which her intelligence led her to admit. She was too partisan to apply to the Senate, as she said, and her conflict of interest in being a donor to the Prime Minister's campaign would mean that she would not be able to investigate the Prime Minister. Yes, of course, she is qualified on languages, but she is not qualified to be an officer of Parliament. Would it be a fair statement to say that someone who is in a conflict of interest cannot perform the role we are asking them to do? That is simply what was exposed through this experience.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand, but people throughout their lives build their qualifications. Whether they have contributed to a political party or not, or whether they have switched sides, it is part of their education and background and what makes a person's character.

The member has suggested that because she donated at some point to the Liberal Party, she is partisan. For all we know, she donated to a bunch of parties. I have donated to different things in my life. Does that mean I am partisan or non-partisan? It is a leap to make it sound as if she is partisan and would be in a conflict of interest. That is what the leap is.