Debates of June 13th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Appointments Committee

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

Mr. Speaker, when I had to interrupt my speech that I started before question period and the vote I was talking about the context in which we find ourselves regarding the appointment of officers of Parliament, specifically that of the Commissioner of Official Languages. In the end the nominee withdrew her candidacy, but it became clear that there are a number of things to consider when someone like Ms. Meilleur is nominated to become an officer of Parliament.

In this case, it seemed that her political affiliations may have played a role in her appointment. She tried to get around the process by going directly to PMO operatives. She spoke openly about her appointment and had even asked to be appointed to the Senate. Apparently she was told that to be a senator she had to be completely impartial, but she was told she could be offered the official languages commissioner position.

This proves that the government does not believe that impartiality is a criterion for becoming commissioner of official languages. We might have expected the opposite to be true, that the position of official languages commissioner requires complete impartiality.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened, and that is why, today, we are debating a motion that seeks to remedy the situation. In that regard, since the beginning of the day, the government has been telling us that everything is fine. As the song says, “Don't worry, be happy”. The government is saying that there is no problem here and that we should concern ourselves with other things. However, this is such a serious problem that we are worried that what happened with the appointment of the official languages commissioner will happen again when other commissioners and officers of Parliament are appointed, as they will be in the near future. There is a long list of appointments that need to be made.

We are not just an opposition party. We are also a party that proposes solutions. In this case, we are proposing a mechanism that will allow for real consultation. One of the biggest problems we had with Ms. Meilleur's appointment was that consultations were held only after the choice was already made. However, the law is clear. It requires the government to consult the leaders of the parties of the House of Commons before appointing an official languages commissioner. In this case, letters were sent to the leaders of the two recognized opposition parties of the House after the decision had already been made. It was not to consult them, but rather to inform them of the decision that had been made.

Obviously, the government did not comply with the law. That is why my colleague from Drummond and other Canadians, including Yvon Godin, former MP and official languages critic, have filed complaints. Obviously, Ms. Meilleur's appointment process did not comply with the Official Languages Act. The law is clear. The government must absolutely hold consultations before making an appointment. However, in this case, the parties were not consulted until afterwards, and they were not even really consulted. They were informed of the decision once it was already a done deal.

That is why we want to remedy the situation by creating a subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that will meet on an ad hoc basis when an appointment is to be approved. I would also like to clarify something that seems to be confusing my colleagues on the other side of the House. Although the committee will hear the candidates and make a decision, ultimately, it is the two chambers that will make the final decision.

If the committee meets with candidates and agrees on the best one to fill an officer of Parliament position, that appointment will have to be approved by both chambers.

There has been much confusion in the House on this point. The members thought that Parliament as a whole would no longer have the prerogative of selecting and approving the appointments, and that only the small committee, made up of a few members of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, could do that. Nothing could be more wrong. The motion is clear, and we are prepared to clarify it further, to make sure that the Liberals are satisfied that the decision will lie with the House of Commons as a whole.

I think it is important to make a distinction. The government is fond of putting all Governor in Council appointments in the same basket. In my opinion, however, a sharp distinction must be made between Governor in Council appointments in general and appointments of officers of Parliament, who must absolutely demonstrate non-partisanship, independence, and impartiality. That goes without saying, since they work not for the government, but for Parliament, that is, for all parliamentarians in both chambers. It is therefore obvious that a different and more rigorous process should be put in place to ensure that the appointees have the confidence of everyone here and in the other place.

I will be happy to answer questions from my colleagues who are in need of clarification.

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

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

There is very clearly a problem with appointments in Canada. These individuals are very important to our elections, our finances, and our legislation. They are our watchdogs.

The only problem the Liberals see is that under our process, we will hold a vote only if a candidate has been approved by the committee. Perhaps we will prepare a motion to resolve that. If the government’s intention is also to improve the process so there will be no more partisanship and those people work in the interests of Canadians, my colleague can envision the possibility of making the change in order to improve the situation. A number of appointments will be made over the next few weeks. If we amend our motion slightly, we will have an opportunity to improve the situation. I listened carefully this morning, and this is the only aspect of our motion that concerns the Liberals. There is also a recommendation from the Conservative party. This is where we stand, then.

The NDP is proposing a solution to a problem manufactured by the Liberals. Because this is not exactly perfect, the Conservative Party could help us by making a proposal. We will consider it with a view to accepting it. Imagine a Parliament that worked that way.

I would like to know what my colleagues think about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recall what my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt said yesterday. He spoke about the spirit that should guide Parliament when we are working, discussing and debating issues. This work should be constructive.

The best example of this, today, is certainly the work of my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He put forward a clear and simple proposal, which included similar examples from elsewhere in the world. He is even willing to work with all the parties to ensure that, ultimately, when we vote, we will have as much support as possible in the House. It is very commendable of him to agree to work with all the parties. Indeed, finding a solution is of utmost importance.

In my opinion, all members of the House intend to avoid at all costs a situation like this from happening again when appointing other officers such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, Chief Electoral Officer, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or Lobbying Commissioner. I think it is even more important now to clarify the consultation process, which the Liberals botched in the case of the official languages commissioner, to make sure that a situation like this does not happen again.

I applaud his work with all the parties to, as our colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt said, create a House in which the members work together and make compromises, because each person raises different aspects. I think we could all set partisan politics aside and agree on logical things.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member think the Liberal government is resistant to listening, truly consulting, and amending the motion so that it works in the House? Why is the Liberal government so resistant to change?

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

Mr. Speaker, the main problem is that the government did not fully understand the real intent of this motion. The explanation that I have heard so far is that the Liberals think we want a veto over appointments, which is completely false.

That is not what the motion says. What the motion asks is that a subcommittee review the applications and propose one to the House. Ultimately it is the House that will always make the final decision.

I wish to clarify this for my Liberal colleagues, who seem to have forgotten or misunderstood it. It is a comprehension problem that can certainly be resolved with the debate today.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year our government introduced an improved appointment process. We were determined to put in place an appointment process that Canadians could trust.

The new appointment process is open, transparent, and merit-based to identify highly qualified candidates who will help achieve gender parity while reflecting Canadian diversity.

This process was developed to find candidates who comply with public service principles and adhere to its values. Candidates must carry out their duties with dignity, integrity, and respect for the highest ethical and professional standards.

Just like officer of Parliament appointments, all new appointments must be reviewed by the appropriate House of Commons committee, and the appointment must be approved by Parliament.

Under the current process, all officer of Parliament appointments must first be tabled in the House and then considered by the appropriate committee. The final decision is always subject to approval by Parliament.

We believe it is anti-democratic to give a veto to a subcommittee for the appointment of an officer of Parliament without holding a vote in the House, as proposed by the NDP motion.

It is essential that all members have the opportunity to take part in the review of appointments of officers of Parliament, and that each is able to vote on these appointments, regardless of the committee’s recommendations.

Our government understands the importance of the work of officers of Parliament, and it will continue to support their full independence, as it has always done.

I would like to point out that a total of 122 people were appointed under the new process. Of these appointments, 70% are women, 12% are visible minorities, and 10% are indigenous.

In general, the selection process is based on the principles of openness, transparency, merit, and diversity.

With regard to openness, the selection process is open to all Canadians to provide them with the opportunity to make a contribution to Canada’s democratic institutions by serving as cabinet appointees.

In respect to transparency, clear information about the requirements and steps involved in the selection process are readily available to the public, in order to reach as many Canadians as possible and attract a strong and diverse field of highly qualified candidates. Decisions on appointments are found in the Privy Council Office’s orders-in-council database.

Regarding merit, the selection process is designed to identify highly qualified candidates who meet the needs of the organization and are able to perform the duties of the position to which they would be appointed. It seeks individuals who have the education, experience, knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal suitability to fill the position.

Regarding diversity, a recruitment strategy seeks to attract qualified candidates who will help to achieve gender parity and reflect Canada’s diversity in terms of linguistic, regional, and employment equity groups. These include indigenous Canadians, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and members of ethnic and cultural groups.

With few exceptions, the government seeks to appoint bilingual Canadians to the Privy Council.

Also, appointments are often subject to legal requirements other than statutory conditions. Thus, in the case of judicial appointments, these requirements must be respected.

I would like to focus a bit on the judicial appointments. In fall 2016, we introduced some important reforms to the judicial appointment process to ensure that appointments are merit-based and that the judiciary reflects the diversity of our country. Our government adopted important measures to ensure that the judicial appointment process is transparent and accountable to Canadians, in addition to promoting greater judicial diversity.

To date, the Minister of Justice has appointed a total of 72 judges, as well as 22 deputy judges across the country. We are very proud, as I am, that 60% of new appointments to the judiciary are women, which represents an increase of 35% compared to the situation under the previous government.

We are committed to continuing our efforts to strengthen our judicial system and that is why the 2017 budget proposes to create 28 new positions for judicial appointments in the federal judiciary.

The importance of ensuring an independent, merit-based appointment process, whether in the context of parliamentary or judicial nominations or appointments, is underscored by the scintillating public service contributions delivered by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about our illustrious chief justice and conclude by returning to the broader subject of nomination procedures.

As we all know, Canada's longest-serving chief justice, appointed by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 2000 and to the court by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1989, announced on Monday that she will be retiring effective December 15. What a tremendous nomination hers was. Chief Justice McLachlin was the first woman to hold this position and the third woman named to the Supreme Court after Bertha Wilson and Claire L’Heureux-Dubé. Justice McLachlin distinguished herself through an uncommon ability to understand issues from the perspective of those most vulnerable, and she delivered profound statements, notably in the area of indigenous law. I would like to point out some of those.

Her time at the court has been marked by a number of groundbreaking decisions, including a series of rulings that strengthened indigenous rights. Canada in 2017 is transforming before our very eyes as governments move, sometimes too slowly, to entrench the notion that governments have a duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal people before making decisions that could affect them. I know that my aboriginal constituents in Kitigan Zibi would appreciate my drawing attention to her reconciliatory leadership in concluding that aboriginal peoples were never conquered and that the doctrine of terra nullius, or empty land, never applied in Canada.

Beyond the courtroom, Justice McLachlin spoke out against the history of cultural genocide against the aboriginal people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This has happened throughout the day. I have waited with patience for my friend, whom I quite like, to talk about the motion in front of us today, which is about the nomination process for officers of Parliament. Liberal members have often tried to stray, and to stray into other nomination processes that have nothing to do with the officers of Parliament. I have great respect for the chief justice, as I am sure we all do, and a speech on her incredible time in office is very important. We are talking about officers of Parliament. We have a very specific proposal in front of us. We have talked about potentially making amendments Liberals have raised. That is a fruitful area of conversation. Speeches on the chief justice, while merited, are not at all connected to the topic at hand.

I waited with some patience, because my friend said he would make a small reference and then return to the topic, but I have been waiting, and we are still talking about the chief justice. We only have limited time for this debate. If we could return to that topic, that would be very helpful, because we are talking about the officers of Parliament, which have nothing at all whatsoever to do with the Supreme Court or any other court in the land.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We are very close. The hon. member has 20 minutes. I have seen speeches go around and I wonder where they are going, but the hon. members often bring it back and make it all work well into a package. I will leave that up to the hon. member for Pontiac. I am sure he will bring it all together in his package. I will give him the benefit on that one. I will let him continue, and I am sure he will bring it all back.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments on making sure that we hold true to the point of discussion on the opposition motion today. However, I think this is relevant, because at the end of the day, what we are talking about is how we achieve good nominations and how we achieve great appointments in Canada. Whether it is a parliamentary appointment or a judicial appointment, how do we ensure that the processes get us to where we want to be in terms of good governance for all Canadians? I thank the Speaker for giving me leave to continue.

As we reflect critically and self-critically on Canada's 150th birthday, it is important to underscore the fact that Chief Justice McLachlin's voice epitomizes that of an engaged judicial leader whose views merit deep consideration by all Canadians. In recent years, the McLachlin court has ruled on the country's prostitution laws and the concept of physician assistance in dying.

Both within the four walls of the court and also outside, Chief Justice McLachlin has been a beacon on the issue of access to justice. Everyone in this House is well aware of the series of stinging rebukes the chief justice delivered to the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper in ruling that the Harper government could not use Parliament alone to impose Senate term limits, allow consultative elections for senatorial candidates, or abolish the upper chamber. Again, this theme goes right back to the issue of nominations. I hasten to point to that linkage.

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice McLachlin has also supported the safe injection facility in Vancouver and overturned a Conservative sentencing law that was part of the government's law and order regime. As someone who has pleaded before her, representing non-governmental interveners, and as it is now before the House of Commons, it is a privilege to point to her as a shining example of a good appointment, someone who was nominated and has served Canadians well.

As Sean Fine, the legal affairs columnist for The Globe and Mail stated so eloquently just yesterday:

She pushed boundaries and took risks, and her vision of Canada became predominant on the court she led, and in the country. On or off the court, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was not afraid to take a stand—whether in accusing Canada of committing cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples in a speech (two years ago), or in defending herself publicly in an unprecedented dispute with a sitting prime minister (three years ago), or in declaring laws unconstitutional and striking them down (on a regular basis for 28 years). And whether those laws harmed the vulnerable or protected the vulnerable, she would take a constitutional hatchet to them if she felt they went beyond what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chief Justice McLachlin for her outstanding service to the people of Canada. She has been an incredible leader of the Supreme Court itself, of the Canadian judiciary, and of the legal system as a whole. She has guided the development of law in the Constitution but never lost sight of the need for the law to remain relevant to the average Canadian and to the people it is intended to serve.

It is with the deepest gratitude that I congratulate Chief Justice McLachlin on her well-deserved retirement. I think it is fair to say that Canadians can only hope that future nominations will be as strong as hers.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. I am looking forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had some hope that it was going to wrap back into the nomination process and how we select our officers of Parliament. My disappointment is because I know my friend thinks long and deeply about these things, and I was hoping for his thoughts, comments, and insights on the particular process we have suggested today.

By everyone's account, we have a problem here in terms of the way the Liberals have nominated people. Their first nomination to an officer of Parliament did not go well. Maybe he has a different version of events, but the one I witnessed, and many Canadians witnessed, was that the Liberals nominated someone who by definition would be in a conflict of interest because of partisan interests, and officers of Parliament must remain non-partisan and impartial to do their work effectively. The Liberals broke that tradition and nominated someone who was partisan, who had donated to the Prime Minister's campaign, who had been a long-serving Liberal, and donated generally speaking.

She said she was going to apply to the Senate but realized she was too partisan for that particular role. She said she would be in a conflict of interest and could not investigate the Prime Minister. We cannot do that.

The process we have suggested is straightforward. It is to allow a nomination to go to a committee made up of one member of each of the recognized parties, who would be allowed to look at the candidate and clearly vet any of those types of problems. The committee's decision would then be returned back to the House, as it should, for a vote by all parliamentarians, because these officers can only be hired and fired by Parliament. That is the proposal at hand.

The one concern the government has raised today, the only one we have heard, is that it wants even rejected applicants to be returned back for a vote in the House. This is something we have publicly said we are open to. Now that we have removed that one problem the Liberal House leader and other Liberal members have offered up, is my friend open to this process to help fix the problem that is obvious to everyone and impart upon Parliament and Canadians an officer of Parliament who can truly work for all parliamentarians, with no conflict of interest, and no cloud of partisanship? Is he supportive of the proposal today?

As a side note, I share his many positive thoughts about the Chief Justice.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say there are many different ways that Parliament can be consulted before nominations and appointments are made. The important thing for Canadians is that they be done in an independent manner, that the process be inclusive, and that it be merit-based.

The accusations of partisanship that we are hearing today, and that we have heard over the past weeks regarding Madam Meilleur, have been most unfortunate. Members from our side have said this repeatedly and quite correctly, her qualifications are unimpeachable. Madeleine Meilleur is a tremendous advocate for linguistic minority rights, and she has been a steadfast supporter of those who seek to ensure their rights are protected.

One can make a claim about partisanship, but at the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being engaged in the political process. In fact, we should be encouraging our youth and the citizenry of Canada to get involved in the political process, whether through volunteering or donating or seeking office. That should not be a reason to disqualify them.

What we have seen over the past few weeks is a lamentable example of hyper-partisanship seeking to ultimately torpedo someone's nomination, and a meritorious candidate at that. That is most unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is just another fine example of the disrespect that Liberals have for the procedures of the House. We are supposed to talk to the motion that the NDP has brought today, yet the member has done nothing but pontificate about a totally unrelated issue, even when corrected by the Speaker.

When we talk about the specific nomination process that went so wrong with Madeleine Meilleur, the consultation was a letter informing the opposition parties that it was happening. This is not a consultation. There is the misrepresentation of facts that went on and all the other partisan appointments we have heard about, yet the member has commented nothing about the nomination process that is being proposed. I will give him another chance. Could he comment?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member opposite had the opportunity to hear the first five or six minutes of my speech, which I delivered in French. It was 100% entirely on the issue of nominations, so I am not sure what was missed there. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the full breadth of the issue of nominations to be discussed in the House. I think Canadians welcome it. They will also welcome the fact that the issue of nominations will be seen in a broader, more positive light. Since this discussion seems to consistently veer down partisan and negative corners, why not focus some positive light on Beverley McLachlin, a beacon of the Canadian justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an interesting debate. We had one Liberal member describe the process with Madeleine Meilleur as an example of how the process works so very well. In fairness, this member described it more accurately as lamentable.

I want to put something else to the member. It is not just partisanship that is the problem; it is basic qualifications. Does he not agree?

I will give a different example, moving away from partisanship. Arthur Porter was named the chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the body that oversees CSIS. To refresh the member's memory because this happened in the 40th Parliament, under the act, the government of the day had to consult with the party leadership of officially recognized parties. In that case, the name Arthur Porter was put forward.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois responded in writing that he did not think that person should be considered and reminded the prime minister of the day of the accusations of corruption with respect to the way Mr. Porter managed a hospital in the U.S. As we all know, he passed away in jail as a convicted fraudster but remained a Privy Council officer to his death and had access to all of the secrets of the Government of Canada during the time he was the chair of SIRC. I would use the word “lamentable” with respect to that, as well as “outrageous”.

From a sensible analysis, does the hon. member not agree that the process being proposed today is better than a process that would allow someone like Arthur Porter to be named the chair of SIRC, even though other leaders of parties said no?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to distinguish between the nomination and appointments process that our government has brought about and the one that was previously in place. We have made it quite clear, and I did as well in my earlier comments, that the spirit of openness, transparency, merit, and diversity are the fundamental values and principles at the core of the Government of Canada's new approach to appointments. Therefore, it is a helpful question, because it allows us to distinguish between what has gone on in the past and what is happening now, whether with respect to parliamentary appointments or judicial appointments.

Our government is steadfast in its belief that we can do a better job serving Canadians, and that the three branches of government, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, can better reflect the public interests of Canadians if there is an appointments process that reflects their own diversity, their expectations for openness, and their expectations that a true merit-based process will be followed.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal of debate on the motion already today, so my plan was not to present a full constructive case for our proposal, but rather, to try to refute the arguments that have been made on the government side. Unfortunately, the government has given me relatively little to work with, and since I do not have very much to say, I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague from Burnaby South.

In the spirit of responding to the few arguments the government has put forward, I would like to identify three. First, the government has suggested it already has a really good process for appointments; second, it has suggested that all members of Parliament should vote on appointments; and third, there has been a suggestion that appointments should be reviewed by the relevant committee.

I will start with the government's first argument that it has brought in this new and improved appointments process that is working or is going to work very well. As part of this, it has also talked a lot about the process for judicial appointments. It is important to emphasize that the motion is not about appointments by the executive branch or judicial appointments, it is about appointments in the legislative branch, appointments for officers of Parliament. That is not just a difference of definitions. There is a really important difference in terms of the role that those appointees play.

There are all sorts of people who are appointed by the government through the executive branch, where it is understood that they are appointed by the government to work on behalf of the government, that the government is accountable for their performance, and there is no expectation that Parliament would review all of those appointments. A lot of the comments from the government apply to that type of situation and are not really relevant to the motion. The comments about judicial appointments also do not fit.

The point about officers of Parliament is that they are officers of this place. They are not representatives of the government and are not supposed to be beholden to the government. Quite the contrary, they need to be independent of the government. Therefore, it is important to have some sort of process that ensures that independence. What better process than one that requires the consent of a majority of the recognized parties in the House? I suggest that is already, essentially, a constitutional convention for many of the rules governing Parliament, in that the way one changes them is to have all parties, or at least the majority of parties, agree. It only stands to reason that we would hold the appointment of these officers of Parliament to exactly the same standard.

The other point I would make on this is that the motion we in the NDP put forward today in no way precludes the government from continuing to use the allegedly improved appointment process that it has been touting. The government would still put forward the names of the nominees to the subcommittee that we are proposing. Therefore, the government can use whatever kind of independent merit-based process it wants to select the best possible appointees to put before the subcommittee. The subcommittee would simply be a check on the fact that the appointees are also non-partisan, independent, and have the confidence of Parliament to serve as officers of Parliament. I would present today's motion as being an addition to and complement to whatever appointment process the government already has or might develop to select people for these roles. This is just another check to make sure the appointees are truly independent and non-partisan. It in no way would detract from a merit-based selection process to come up with nominees in the first place.

The second big argument we have heard from the government is that all members of Parliament should vote on whether or not to approve these appointments, as is currently the case. I believe the last member who spoke said it would be undemocratic not to have all members of Parliament vote.

I want to make crystal clear the NDP motion does suggest that appointees approved by the subcommittee would then be voted on by all of Parliament. As we recently heard from the motion's sponsor, we are quite happy to amend the motion in such a way that it is also crystal clear that proposed nominees who are rejected will come to all of Parliament for a vote. That part of the process is not going to be changed. It is the status quo. It remains that way in our motion. Ultimately, all of Parliament still gets a vote on these appointments. That is entirely proper, and as it should be.

We should also recognize that one aspect of having Parliament vote on these appointments is that quite often, and certainly right now, the governing party has a majority of votes in the House of Commons. We are in the situation where if the only test is a vote in Parliament, or a vote of a parliamentary committee that reflects the composition of the overall House of Commons, then the government can essentially appoint whomever it wants, and use its majority to pass that appointment.

While, clearly, these appointments should ultimately be subject to a vote of the entire House of Commons, I do not think that constitutes a sufficient test to guarantee independence and non-partisanship. The way to get independence and non-partisanship is to set up a process in which more than one political party needs to sign-off on the appointment. That is exactly what the NDP is proposing, to set up this subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee with one representative from each recognized party. That subcommittee would either approve or reject the appointments.

The purpose of this mechanism is to ensure that all parties have a vote, and that we have sign-off from more than just the governing party on the appointment. Whereas, if we only rely on existing standing committees, or the House of Commons to approve these appointments, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that officials may get appointed simply based on the support of the government without any buy-in from other parties.

The third argument we have heard is the idea that these appointments should be vetted by the appropriate committee. For sure, there is a logic that the Official Languages Commissioner should be looked at by the official languages committee, that the head of a public service commission or the public sector integrity commissioner should be looked at by the government operations committee. As a vice-chair of that committee, I have had the opportunity to review one such appointment already.

The point that really needs to be emphasized is that the composition of the subcommittee of PROC is not fixed. It is not only MPs from PROC who would be able to sit on that subcommittee and review appointments. As would any committee or subcommittee, the recognized parties in the House of Commons could substitute whichever MPs they wanted to vet any particular appointment.

Under this system, it is entirely appropriate and probable that what parties would do is take their relevant critics, and put them on this subcommittee when it is reviewing an appointment in its area. I would expect that if the government were trying to appoint an Official Languages Commissioner, parties would put their official languages critics on the subcommittee to review that appointment. If the government were appointing the head of the Public Service Commission, parties would almost certainly put their public service and procurement critics on the subcommittee.

The subcommittee in no way detracts from the expertise of other committees, it is simply a mechanism to ensure that more than one recognized party needs to sign-off on these appointments of parliamentary officers. That is precisely what this House needs to ensure these officials are able to operate in the way that is independent and non-partisan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his most appropriate remarks.

My question is about the risks associated with other potential appointments to fill vacant commissioner positions that will need to be filled in the coming months. If the process remains as it is now, there is a risk that the incumbents will be seen as partial and partisan. How might this influence the credibility of these institutions and the reports produced by these officers of Parliament?

Can the hon. member talk about the risks associated with maintaining a process that appears to be broken?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I worked very hard in my remarks not to simply talk about the scandal surrounding the appointment of Madam Meilleur. I tried to talk about the entire process, and about other officers of Parliament. However, this question does bring us to the scandal engulfing Madam Meilleur, because government should be able to appoint a Commissioner of Official Languages without it turning into this kind of train wreck.

We see there are several other officers of Parliament up for appointment in the very near future. Therefore, the risk, if we do not adopt this motion, is that we are just going to have more of these scandals, more of these problems, if we carry on. This will really undercut the very important work that these officers of Parliament do, need to do, and need to be seen to do in an independent way.

It is extremely important for the House to adopt this motion to ensure these upcoming appointments occur in a way that is much smoother, and in a way that is also seen to be appropriate and legitimate.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on a thoughtful and extremely rational approach to appointments. Canadians have watched government after government at the federal and, frankly, many provincial levels abuse their position of having a majority by appointing people to positions of authority that are simply tainted with partisan consideration.

The issue before the House is that we are asking parliamentarians to recognize there are certain positions that ought to be above partisanship. They ought to be officers of the House who are here to serve the House on a non-partisan basis, and serve Canadians in a similar way.

The United States has an approval process for important positions, where potential candidates are called before committee, which is televised, so that all Americans can see those people answer questions. Does the member have any thoughts on whether such a process could be validly imported to Canada. If we are really concerned about transparency, then perhaps we ought to have proceedings where officers of the House are appointed where the committee work, and the questions being asked of the potential candidates are there for all Canadians to see.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is currently the case that these appointees go up before the respective committees where they are subject to questioning, and those proceedings can be televised. I would agree with the member that it might be a useful reform to ensure that those proceedings are televised.

Certainly, one of the benefits of the NDP motion today is that we would continue to have these hearings to approve officers of Parliament when they are appointed, but they would be before a body in which all recognized parties have the same vote. Therefore, it would not simply be a matter of asking questions, but it would also be a matter of needing the approval of more than one recognized party. That is the best possible test for non-partisanship and independence.

Earlier today, members on the government side were making the argument that people should not be excluded from these appointments because they have ever given money to a political party, and I would agree with that. Therefore, we do need some kind of test to determine whether or not someone is considered sufficiently independent, and getting the consent of other parties is the right mechanism.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak about this important opposition day motion, something we should all be considering seriously because it concerns our democracy. Democracy is a strange word. We can use it as a noun, and as a verb. Canada is a democracy, but we also practise democracy, which is the process by which we make decisions. There are certain qualifications for this process. I will not go into all of them, but one of the important things is the whole idea of the process by which we make decisions. It is not only that we are elected to this place, and that we abide by the rule of law and those types of issues, it is also about the micro-processes by which we conduct ourselves both here in the House of Commons and in our governing business, in general.

The motion presents an opportunity, a moment in time. A lot of it has been connected to a discussion about a recent appointment, but in fact it is an opportunity for us to talk about our general process in this House, to step back, put down the partisan gloves, and ask how we could improve the process in the House of Commons.

This is a very good motion. It would remove any partisanship from appointments of parliamentary officers, which is a very good first step. It is practised in a number of provinces. I come from British Columbia, which has actually led the way in Canada, in terms of trying to ensure officers of parliament and the legislature were appointed in an independent way. That is something we should emulate. In fact, we need to catch-up a bit to what has been done in British Columbia.

There is a reason why officers of Parliament are important. We have had elusion to American politics. It is hard not to escape the tsunami of press that comes from the United States, especially now with President Trump in office. However, the United States has checks and balances. The American system was, in essence, designed to make sure that no one gets too much power. Congress, the courts, and the president all balance each other out. We can see, even with control of the two houses of representatives in the United States and the presidency, the Republicans still do not push many things through their legislative process because of the checks and balances, and also because their parties are not disciplined. They do not have the same ability to whip members in the senate or house of representatives that we do here in the House.

What we have in Canada is a very concentrated process where, with the Prime Minister, there is a great concentration of power, and since that power has been centralized through political parties since the 1970s, essentially, we have a tremendous amount of power centred in the hands of the Prime Minister. Independent officers of Parliament are important because they provide an important check to that power. We all wait for the Auditor General's reports to come out, because we know they are independent assessments of what is happening in the House, what is happening with budgets, what is happening with processes. We wait for those reports, and we need to very much respect the person, and we do, who is putting out those reports. In many ways, the officers of Parliament have to be seen as above politics, and they have to have the confidence of everybody.

We have been very lucky in Canada to have a number of independent officers. They have had great respect over the years. However, there is not always a guarantee that happens, especially if the government is using these offices to insert people who are deeply partisan in their outlook. This motion is making sure we can have confidence in these independent officers of Parliament.

My colleague from Saskatchewan made some very good points about the details of this process. What is really important, for example, in the conflict of interest legislation, we have conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest. In terms of appointments of parliamentary officers, we have to look our for the same thing. Even though an officer may not be in conflict, or may not be offering partisan favour, if the appearance is there of such a conflict, or such favouritism toward a particular side, then that erodes the sanctity and the confidence we have in those officers.

In a way, what we are proposing here with the standing committee where one party cannot make a unilateral decision on who is appointed, it protects that office. It ensures that we have the confidence that not only would there not be any kind of favouritism but there would be no appearance of favouritism. That is so important because, without that confidence—or say someone is appointed who is very partisan—the danger is that the moniker of an independent officer provides a kind of shield for that person.

Say, for example—and I do not want to cast aspersions on the current government—some prime minister is deeply partisan and decides only to appoint partisan members to be independent officers. Those officers then would be provided the shield of independence, people being lulled into a false sense of security that these officers are actually independent. What is being proposed here is a necessary check and balance. I think it needs to be put in place, and I do hear from the other side that members are considering it. There are a few minor objections, but I hope that they move forward and support our motion.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my own proposal for a new independent officer of Parliament, and that is the parliamentary science officer. I tabled a bill in the House in the last Parliament and this Parliament. I had support from the Royal Society and other noted science bodies to have an independent officer of Parliament here who would be devoted purely to science. That office would be open to all members of the House. It would be open to senators as well. If there were a question of science within a committee, which arises all the time, this independent officer would be able to go out and provide the necessary information to inform either individual members of the government or committees in terms of what the proper science is.

For example, the natural resources committee might be debating climate change. The independent officer of Parliament would go out and get all the best information about this and then report back to the committee and give the best information available. In that case, it would be very important for that officer to be independent and to be seen as independent. For example, if a certain government appointed a climate change denier as a parliamentary science officer, that would not work very well, so that is why we need this balance and that is why I am providing this example.

I see this as a growth area for government. I think we have found how necessary it is to have auditors general, parliamentary budget officers, and conflict of interest officers. These are very important positions that are being adopted all over the world now, and now there are other positions. They are very low cost for what we actually get out of these positions. In some cases, they are a single office and they have limited staff, but they provide assurance that our democracy is working properly.

I love these kinds of debates. I find the substance of policy debates important.

I would like to read a motion into the record. Seconded by the member for London—Fanshawe, I move:

That the motion be amended:

(a) by replacing section 4 of the proposed Standing Order with the following:

(4) Not later than the expiry of the thirty-day period provided for in the present Standing Order, a notice of motion to concur in the report referred to in section (3) of this Standing Order shall be put under Routine Proceedings, to be decided without debate or amendment.

(b) by deleting section 5 of the proposed Standing Order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that the amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip, or the deputy whip for the sponsoring party. Does the sponsor agree to this?

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

I am just looking over the language right now, Mr. Speaker.

I am also looking over the comments made by the government House leader that indicated the government's concern with the process that we originally outlined. Not only am I more than satisfied that the amendment falls in line with the spirit of what we are trying to do to make appointments more fair to all parliamentarians, but this explicitly addresses the single concern we have heard from the Liberal government House leader about being able to have the recommendation come back from the committee, regardless of whether it has been accepted or rejected, for a final vote in the House. That was her concern, and it was repeated many times.

The member's effort to amend this came from a suggestion by the Conservatives, just for reference sake, and then we did some work on this.

The amendment as outlined by my colleague is not only in the spirit of what we are trying to do, but it addresses the Liberals' concerns. I thank my Conservative colleagues who first proposed this. Is this not nice? Is this not the way Parliament should work?

I look forward to support also from my Liberal colleagues when we vote on this tomorrow afternoon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We now have the consent of the sponsor.

Questions and comments.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today's motion has given us an opportunity to review the process for appointments compared to what currently exists and then look at what the NDP has proposed.

Although I am new in this place, I have had the opportunity to substitute on a number of occasions on the citizenship and immigration committee. I have also had the opportunity to sub-in on the procedure and House affairs committee on a number of occasions. I have seen that the use of filibustering by the minority parties in those committees has prevented a lot of the government's work from getting done.

For example, the House voted unanimously to do a study into immigration to Atlantic Canada and it was filibustered by the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives. The procedure and House affairs committee was looking at ways to modernize this place in a way that would allow all parliamentarians to engage in the debate on how to improve this place, and we were denied that opportunity by members filibustering in committee.

The existing process, which allows individual committees to review the appointments of qualified individuals to assume parliamentary offices is a balanced process. It does not give a veto power to individual minority parties in the House. It allows the work of this place to get done. This proposal is to consolidate that role within a committee that could easily be filibustered by the minority parties to thwart what happens in this place.

Could the member tell me what protections we have that nominations will ultimately get through to appointments and that the work of the House of Commons can be done and not be thwarted by the minority parties?