Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2018

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #901

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:49 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Officers of Parliament

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, a special committee, chaired by the Speaker of the House, should be established at the beginning of each new Parliament, in order to select all Officers of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present this motion. It is a pretty simple motion, actually. It is a matter of fixing something that is wrong right now, that our officers or agents of Parliament, the words are interchangeable, are hired by the executive in the process that is used.

My motion is deliberately worded so that I am not calling on the government, today, to implement it this Parliament, because, quite frankly, I have been around long enough to know that is not going to happen. I deliberately placed a model in here. I want to say that I am not married to that model either. The principle is what matters to me. The principle is that Parliament should hire Parliament's agents. It is that simple.

I have to say that I am really looking forward to arguments against this motion, simply because I cannot think of any that hold any merit. I am very much looking forward to the debate that will ensue with those who do not think that Parliament should stand up for its own rights.

I am going to make reference during, and also after, my initial remarks to a Public Policy Forum report that was just issued in April this year. What is interesting is that I had already drafted my motion by the time this report came out, which calls for something similar.

First of all, I want to introduce the report very briefly:

In this report, the Public Policy Forum (PPF) analyzes the current and evolving role of agents at the federal and provincial levels to provide recommendations on how oversight and guidance in the administration of policies can be improved while maintaining their autonomy within Canada’s Westminster system.

Supported by an advisory group of former agents, senior public servants and other experts, PPF conducted 20 interviews and organized three roundtable discussions between October and December 2017.

I do not want to take the time to mention everyone involved in this report, but just to give colleagues a taste of the calibre of the people who were involved in it. There is going to be at least one name that will twig with everybody, I suspect. I am just going to pick some of them: Margaret Bloodworth; Robert Marleau, former Clerk of the House of Commons; Jodi White; David Zussman; Richard Dicerni; Paul Dubé; Janet Ecker; Christine Elliott; Graham Fraser; the amazing Sheila Fraser, who alone should be enough for the House to follow the recommendations; Edward Greenspon; Bonnie Lysyk; John Milloy; Kevin Page, whom we all remember, and for the work he is still doing at the University of Ottawa; James Rajotte, a well-known member to colleagues; and Wayne Wouters, former Clerk of the Privy Council. That is the calibre of people who were involved in this report.

Their number one recommendation out of nine is the following:

The creation of new agents is the purview of Parliament and legislatures, not the executive.

The third recommendation states:

Legislators must be responsible for the appointment of agents, with the aim of having all-party support for the final selection. The Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office should withdraw entirely from the appointments process. A special parliamentary committee should consider the kinds of selection processes operating in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan.

May I add that the United Kingdom, the mother ship, is really radical in who takes the lead in hiring the U.K. Parliament's auditor general. Guess who it is? It is the public accounts committee, the home committee to our auditor general. How can that not make sense?

Before we get to the principle of why we should be doing this, members need to look at the incompetence on the part of the current government in making appointments and at all the messes and botch-ups it has made through all of it. I expect that all of those details are going to come out over the next couple of hours of discussion, which will be split over a couple of days.

The report I made reference to had something to say about the process the government followed too:

The shambolic nature of the appointments process has done nothing to elevate the standing of agents in the mind of legislators, public servants and the public.

Further, as one round table participant said, one only has to look at the botched effort to appoint former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister Madeleine Meilleur as the Official Languages Commissioner, in 2017, to see how not to handle the appointment of an agent of Parliament.

If we take a look at the current process, it technically meets the law in that this House has to give its final approval with a vote. However, under the current system, the government does the entire hiring process, short of letting the two other leaders know what its intention is.

I just happen to have a sample of that. This is a letter to the leader of the NDP. We will see who knows the rules over there.

It states, “I am writing to seek your views regarding the proposed nominee for the position of Chief Electoral Officer.” I am pulling out bits of this. I love this. It goes on, “Following an open and transparent and merit-based selection process, I propose the nomination of”, Mr. X, “as the next Chief Electoral Officer.” I do not feel it is necessary to mention his name.

That was on April 3. On April 27, the NDP leader got another letter from the Prime Minister, which stated, “I am writing in follow-up to the letter from the government of April 3 regarding the position of Chief Electoral Officer. Your feedback was appreciated. Please be advised that the government will not be proceeding with the nomination, as the principal nominee has been withdrawn.”

We can tell it is a form letter, because it says, “Following an open and transparent and merit-based selection process, I propose the nomination of Stéphane Perrault as the next Chief Electoral Officer.”

That took months and months and months, and it was still screwed up in the end.

This is basic civics. We all know that there are three branches that govern in Canada. First, there is the legislative branch. That is us. That is Parliament, which is every MP who is elected. Second, there is the executive. That is the Prime Minister and cabinet. Finally, we have the Supreme Court, whose primary function in relation to us is to make sure that the laws that are passed are consistent with the Constitution.

Some will recall that when we elect a Speaker at the beginning of Parliament, the Speaker is ceremoniously dragged, as if reluctant to take the very position he or she just spent days, if not weeks, actively running for. Why is that? We have to go back to the beginning, when Parliament first came into existence. All or any of the powers Parliament had came from the monarch. The monarchs, kind of like some of our former prime ministers, did not like it when people opposed them or took away any power they had. They had to remember their place.

Therefore, the Speaker would be the one to report to the monarch on what Parliament had said, and it was not unusual in the early, early days for Speakers to lose their heads. Therefore, it was not a position a lot of people wanted because they had to go in front of the monarch, who may or may not be in a good mood. My point in raising that is to show the separation of those powers. This is not a complicated constitutional issue, in my view.

The Supreme Court hires its own staff. We would not think of deciding for the court who its nominees should be, give it a phone call the night before and say, “After consultation, do you agree with this name?” That is all that happens here. We would never think of doing that with the Supreme Court and the court, of course, would never think of hiring our agents. I remind all of us that Parliament is supreme, not the government. Parliament decides who the government is. That is the power of Parliament.

The executive is a separate, distinct branch and power base of its own. We currently have this ridiculous, unacceptable overlap. In the case of our agents, whether it is ethics, languages or the Auditor General, the government does the advertising, the interviews, the short listing and picks a name from its own short list, phones the opposition leaders and says, “Consistent with the law, this is consultation. Do you agree?” That is unacceptably absurd. Why would we allow that?

I am looking at all fellow MPs when I say that we are parliamentarians. We are the ones who make up this legislature. Why do we allow the executive to control the hiring process of our officers and agents of Parliament? Why would we do that? Some might say we do that because the executive does it so well. It is going to be fun if anybody tries that defence, because I can say that not just me but there are a whole lot of other people who are ready to go on that one. Is it because the executive has the means? We control the purse. We can give the Speaker all the money we feel necessary to run the selection process. I run out of ideas after that. It always was. It is never much of an answer for anything really, to just say “it always was”. This is an attempt to plant a seed, hopefully for the next Parliament, when somebody will grab it, bring it to light, give it life and have the next Parliament do this.

Knowing how tough it is to get a government to change in midstream and how late my number was coming up in the term, I thought that all I really want to achieve, if I can, is a majority vote of parliamentarians who accept and respect that we should control the process of hiring our officers of Parliament. My goal is hopefully to get that majority and if I cannot, I would tell those who do not support this to get ready to defend, because the New Democrats are going to make it an issue.

I do not know what the official opposition is going to do. It will be interesting to see. Part of my thinking is that the Conservatives do not want to give up power because they see themselves going back across the aisle and they would like to have that power for themselves, but, by the same token, they want to oppose the government so here is a chance to stand with the angels. It will be tough. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

At the end of the day, this is about respecting ourselves, respecting Parliament and taking back that which is ours.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton Centre for bringing forward his motion and for his extremely passionate speech. I have not had the opportunity to really talk to him outside of this place. However, my father who spent some time in the Ontario legislature with him spoke fondly of his passion and the speeches he would give. He has certainly lived up to that today.

We have adopted within this government a new approach, a new open and transparent approach to how appointments are handled. As a matter of fact, of the over 900 appointments made, including eight officers of Parliament, after more than 250 open and transparent and merit-based selection processes, we know that over 50% of the candidates self-identified as women, 12% as visible minorities, 9% as indigenous people and 4% as people with disabilities.

Does my colleague think that the process we currently have is producing a wide and diverse pool of candidates from throughout the country?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his kind remarks. I remember his dad well and enjoyed working with him very much.

The hon. member mentioned 900 appointments. We just want nine. We want 1%. As to the other ones, I am glad that the government is improving the system and that it is resulting in more diversity. That is all to the good, but it has nothing to do with what I have put before the House.

I have put before the House this question: Should we as Parliament have the responsibility and ownership for hiring our agents?

It is good that the government is making those changes. I hope they do better than the appointments we have seen, because the process is pretty bad.

The issue is really not what the government is doing internally for the positions it is entitled to make appointments for. I am talking about the nine that in my opinion the government is not entitled to appoint.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity in the Manitoba legislature to be under a different model. I have experience with what we have here today, and with what the member is somewhat implying, where members of different political identities meet to hire these independent officers.

Being familiar with both processes, I am comfortable with what we are proposing and what the government has advanced. To give the impression that we could have a committee off to the side that has a majority of government members would change that effect. I prefer the opportunity that we have in Ottawa compared with we had in Manitoba, because in our case the appointee appears before a standing committee to go over his or her credentials. The appointment process that my colleague demonstrated has been highly successful and transparent.

Would the member not agree that there are alternatives and that his way is not the only way?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have experience too. When I was at Queen's Park, we had to hire the sergeant-at-arms. We pulled together one individual from each of the parties and the Speaker chaired the meeting. How is that unfair? How can that not work?

When I look at the system now and the perfunctory form letters with the one name that appears at the end of the process, if that somehow constitutes our hiring our own officers of Parliament, I do not buy it.

I acknowledged at the beginning that I am not wed to this particular model. I am open to any model, and there are all kinds of different models. The principle is either one way or the other. The current principle is that the government is doing the process. My motion says that is not acceptable anymore. They are our officers. We should control the entire process, and I guarantee that we will have candidates as good if not better than anyone the government chooses.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the legislative branch able to see the names, qualifications and resumés of the candidates who have applied to be appointed officers of Parliament? Is it possible to prepare the questions to be asked in the interview and to design the scoring grid used to determine who is the best candidate?

Is the legislative branch currently able to do any of this?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go over what is a successful model in which we should all take immense pride and move forward with.

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate today in response to a motion by the hon. member for Hamilton Centre and to speak about our government's commitment to the highest standards of openness and transparency.

During the 2015 election campaign, we committed to delivering real change to how government worked. It meant setting a higher bar for openness and transparency in government that would be accountable to Parliament and Canadians.

The results of that last election were clear and unambiguous. Canadians voted for a government to do different things and to do things differently. At times, this has meant challenging the conventional ways of doing things and embracing change to find the solutions we need to make government more fair, open and transparent.

Today we have fulfilled several commitments to changing the status quo to make Parliament more fair and open, which includes applying a more rigorous approach to appointments. Our government, with the invaluable help of public servants, stopped the practice of rewarding party loyalists with Senate and Governor in Council appointments.

Instead we have put in place an open, transparent and merit-based appointment process to help identify highly qualified candidates who are committed to the principles of public service and embrace the public service values. Since implementing a new approach in 2016, more than 25,000 applications have been submitted online for appointment opportunities in close to 200 federal organizations.

To date, over 900 appointments have been made, including appointments to the eight officer of Parliament positions, following more than 250 open, transparent and merit-based selection processes. Of these incumbents, over 50% have self-identified as women, 12% as visible minorities, 9% as indigenous peoples and 4% as persons with a disability. This number includes the appointment of eight officers of Parliament.

There are 11 officers of Parliament: the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the President of the Public Service Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Senate Ethics Officer.

Each of these officers of Parliament has a unique mandate and every one of them plays an important role in our democracy.

The Auditor General was the first such officer of Parliament, established just after Confederation in 1868.

In 1920, the role of the Chief Electoral Officer was created to ensure an independent body was in place to oversee our elections.

The Commissioner of Lobbying was established in 2008.

In the past, appointments were made behind closed doors, at the discretion of the minister or the prime minister, based strictly on politics. The process rewarded partisan loyalists with plum well-paid positions across the federal government.

In February 2016, this government took steps to put a stop to this. We put in place a more rigorous approach to the Governor in Council appointments, an approach that is founded on the principles of openness, transparency and merit. These changes also apply to the process to appoint officers of Parliament.

What does this mean in practice for officers of Parliament?

First, a notice of appointment opportunity is developed and posted on the Governor in Council appointments website. A link to the notice is also posted on the Canada Gazette website and the website of the organization, which is filling the position. Every person who feels he or she meets the qualifications of the position can register online and submit his or her candidacy.

Second, a recruitment strategy is developed for every selection process to identify people who are interested, willing and able to serve. This may include engaging an executive search firm or developing an advertising strategy and may also involve targeted outreach to communities of interest, such as professional associations and stakeholders. This process eventually leads to the identification of a highly qualified candidate.

This process for government appointments to Governor in Council positions, including officers of Parliament, is ensuring that the results are open, transparent and based on merit. In that spirit of openness and transparency, there is also collaboration and goodwill. When a selection process for an officer of Parliament is launched, this government has sent letters to leaders and critics of the opposition parties in one or both Houses of Parliament. For recent processes, the government has also sent letters to the Speakers of both Houses, given the reporting relationship of the position. The purpose of these letters is to promote awareness of the advertised position and to seek input on potential candidates who may be interested in these unique opportunities to serve Canadians.

It is important to emphasize that these letters are not required in statute. They exemplify the openness and the transparency our government stands by, as well as our respect for the input of prospective officials in the appointment process and the role of Parliament. In the case of most officers of Parliament there is also a legislative requirement that, once the government has identified a candidate, it consult with the leader of every recognized party in one or both houses of Parliament.

We have been meeting these obligations. Mr. Speaker, your ruling on this very matter, last year on May 29, confirmed this. Typically, a nominee is invited to appear before the appropriate committee to review his or her qualifications. Legislation also requires approval by resolution of one or both houses of Parliament. A selection process is overseen by a selection committee, which reviews applications to ensure they meet established criteria and then selects a short list of candidates for further assessment through interviews and other assessments that are required.

Candidates whom the selection committee considers to be highly qualified for consideration for appointment also undergo formal reference checks to further assess their personal suitability. The committee presents formal advice to the responsible minister on the most qualified candidates for consideration. The minister then uses the selection committee's advice in finalizing his or her recommendation to the Governor in Council.

It is important to recognize the tenure of officers of Parliament. Furthermore, this motion seeks to have a special committee select all officers of Parliament at the beginning of each new Parliament. However, the length of the tenure in office varies between seven and 10 years, with some positions eligible for reappointment while others are not, since the minimal length of a tenure for all officers of Parliament being seven years means some positions would not be vacated during the five-year constitutional limit of Parliament. Therefore, this motion would overrule the tenure limits outlined in the appropriate acts by having the special committee select all officers of Parliament at the beginning of each new Parliament. Additionally, with some positions eligible for a reappointment, officers with the term ending within the five-year constitutional limit would have to either reapply or give notice of their intention not to be reappointed at the beginning of each new Parliament, possibly years before the expiry of the term.

There are many opportunities for parliamentarians to have their say on the appointments to these important roles. In the case of officers of Parliament, our government has included early engagement with parliamentarians at the outset of the process to seek their input. This is in addition to the legislative requirement for consultation, which a ruling in this House has confirmed that we are meeting. Consultation is followed by nomination, which is followed by a nominee's appearance before one or more committees. There is then a statutory requirement to have the appointment approved by resolution in the House of Commons or the Senate or both.

I genuinely believe that the Prime Minister and this government have fulfilled a commitment that he made to Canadians in the last federal election. Today, unlike with prior prime ministers or governments, we do have a very transparent, very open process that is based on merit. We have seen that in the hundreds of appointments that this government has made. Whether talking about the issues of gender, minorities or disabilities, this government has demonstrated that as a government we are committed to transparency; we are committed to finding the best, most-qualified Canadians in order to fill these very important jobs, not only the independent parliamentary officers but for all the Governor in Council appointments. We believe in our civil service and the fine work that our many civil servants do, day in and day out.

We are asking for opposition members to recognize the significant change that has taken place under this administration since 2016. Any objective person looking in and looking at the results of the appointments that this Prime Minister and cabinet and government have made will find that they have been of great significance in terms of merit and in terms of ensuring that there was a sense of transparency and openness. I am proud of the way in which this government has approached appointments in Canada.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind Motion No. 170 is an absolutely beautiful one. We would all like to see a more democratic House and more democratic processes. Certainly for me, as the new shadow cabinet minister for democratic institutions, democracy and democratic processes in Canada and around the world are very close to my heart.

Unfortunately, Motion No. 170, like so many other things in life, is something which is beautiful in theory, but becomes an absolute disaster when it is applied. I believe that is what we are seeing here. We would have the romantic notion that there would be nine individuals who are appointed to this committee, which would see all sides working together from across the House to come up with the very best processes for each of the possibly most important officers in the government, certainly something which would have an incredible effect not only on the Government of Canada but also Canadian society.

Unfortunately, there are no guidelines given in the one-sentence motion that is before us. What I have learned in my experience not only in the public and foreign service but across government is that where there is no process, there is a void, and where there is a void, there is the potential for corruption. That is what we have seen time and time again from the current government, partisanship and corruption, when it is given the latitude to make decisions to choose the officers.

Let us evaluate the process at present. Why so many of my colleagues were very enchanted by the possibility of this motion, why they thought it was a great idea is that they are truly democratic. They truly want MPs to have more power to choose these officers, because what happens right now is these top officers of Parliament are appointed by the Prime Minister. As we have heard from other colleagues, usually it is a short list of, say, the name of one person. However, there is certainly the idea that there is input from all sides of the House. Now, we rarely see this happen.

I had the opportunity to provide input when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This happened after Madeleine Meilleur was to become the next official languages commissioner, but that is a whole other story I will get to later.

I remember we had the opportunity to ask Mr. Théberge questions. I knew at the time that our questions did not have much influence over the process and the outcome, because Mr. Théberge would become the official languages commissioner.

However, for at least an hour, we were allowed to feel as though we were part of the process, even though the candidate had already been chosen.

At least now this goes through a committee. We have the idea that perhaps we might be a small part of this process by which the officers of Parliament are chosen, but as I have said, unfortunately, there are no details with this motion, not one. In fact, I have a lot of fun thinking about how we might possibly choose our officers of Parliament. Maybe we would do it by playing horseshoes or a game of darts, I do not know, but there is really that much information in this motion in terms of how we would select these officers. As I have said, where there is no process, there is a void, and where there is a void, there is the potential for partisanship and corruption.

We know that the Liberal government will take the opportunity for corruption and partisanship time after time. We have seen this again and again. For example, there was Madeleine Meilleur, the best candidate.

In French, we would make a play on words with her name, saying that Madeleine Meilleur was the meilleure, or best, candidate.

Sure she was, but guess what else. She was a former Ontario Liberal MPP, someone very involved and intertwined with the party. The Liberals tried to sell it to us as the best choice of an independent candidate, when in fact, this was not the case. It was not someone from input from other parties. It was someone who was pre-selected by the government and fed to us as an independent choice, as the best choice. In fact, this was someone the government specifically chose.

Again, there is no process. There is a void in Motion No. 170, and where there is a void, there is the potential for corruption and partisanship, as we saw with Madam Meilleur.

It does not end there. We saw the same with Senate appointments. The Prime Minister decided that he would like independent Senate appointments. He made all the senators independent, and going forward, would choose senators based on merit. I will say that I was very insulted, as an Albertan, that our own democratic process in Alberta was completely ignored and denied. We had a senator in waiting who was put on the sidelines and ignored. Instead, there were the Prime Minister's favourite choices. Again, this shows that where there is no process, there is a void. Where there is a void, there is the potential for partisanship and corruption, which the government has shown time and time again.

I will also say that, unfortunately, as the new shadow minister for democratic institutions, I am seeing the same with Bill C-76, which is in the House this week going to report stage. I look forward to speaking to this tomorrow, with all of my colleagues, because we are seeing again the opportunity for the government to make the rules for itself. Its objective is very clear. It is not only to pass the bill but to win the next election and every election in perpetuity as a result of changing the rules—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind hon. members that someone is speaking. It is nice to see people talking to each other, but shouting way down the aisle or across the aisle is not exactly polite, and it is coming from both sides, so I do not want to point anyone out. I do not want to point anyone out, but I would expect him to lead by example.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that democracy is not taken more seriously in this chamber in this regard, when we are discussing something as important as the selection process for our senior officers of Parliament. I struggle to think of something more important than this.

In addition to Bill C-76, which I touched on briefly before the Speaker so kindly asked for the respect and attention of others in the House, we are also seeing this blatantly with the office of a debates commissioner. I think this is incredibly unfortunate, because once again, the government is not only deciding that it is going to make up the rules itself to put its potential candidate in the best light, but worse than that, it is silencing Canadians. It is saying to Canadians that they do not have the opportunity to determine how they will select the next leader of their country, which is the most important office in the country. It is saying that the government will decide for them the format in which the questions are asked and how they will be asked. It is saying that Canadians do not have the right to decide how they will determine the process to determine the next leader of their country. It is absolutely shameful that this would possibly exist.

It is for these reasons, the striking void in Motion No. 170, that I cannot support this proposed legislation and that, unfortunately, my colleagues cannot support this piece of proposed legislation. As I said, where there is no process, there is a void. Where there is a void, there is the potential for partisanship and corruption, and we have seen that over and over again from the Liberal government.

I would like to finish with what I started with, which is that the motion before us, like so many things in life, is so beautiful in principle, so beautiful in theory, but in practice, not so much.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion, which is very important. Officers of Parliament play an essential role.

I would like to speak briefly about my experience as an MP. Back in the day, Jack Layton appointed me military procurement critic. I can assure the House that without the tireless work of Kevin Page, my role would have been much more difficult. He was able to give me a great deal of information on the cost of the infamous F-35s. His role was really crucial. I have a true appreciation for the work done by officers of Parliament.

When we talk about officers of Parliament, we are talking about nine individuals who play an essential role for all parliamentarians, not just government members. We all interact with them. Francophone MPs might have frequent dealings with the Commissioner of Official Languages, for example. That position is extremely important to them.

The Liberals have shown us exactly what not to do when appointing someone to those positions.

Members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages were told that an independent appointment process had taken place and that the best candidate for the job of official languages commissioner just happened to be a former Liberal minister. The opposition leaders received a letter indicating that she was the best candidate. That letter was the extent of the consultation process.

I understand that, for logistical reasons, every member of the House cannot see all of the resumés and interview questions, but at least one NDP representative could have been asked to consider the appointment. That person could have seen the list of candidates, participated in the selection process, and known which candidates were rejected and which were called in for an interview.

Right now, we know nothing about what is happening. We were informed of the name of the person who was supposedly the most qualified for the job. We know that about 70 other people applied, but we have no idea why their resumés were rejected or accepted. We have no idea who was invited to an interview. We have no idea what questions were asked during those interviews. We have no idea what criteria were used to assess the applications and determine who was the best candidate. We have no idea about any of that.

The government imposed a name, and we just had to believe in its ability to determine who was the best candidate. We did not even know what evaluation grid was used, for example. We had no information on that, nil.

On top of that, it took the government 24 months to appoint an official languages commissioner. It also took 24 months to find a replacement for the chief electoral officer, even though he had announced his departure in advance. It even took the chief electoral officer saying that the next election might be compromised if someone were not appointed. The former chief electoral officer said the government had to stop wasting time, as the situation had become totally absurd.

This proposal is about creating a committee to take care of this. The committee would be non-partisan. It would therefore be composed of members from all parties. It could deal with several aspects that are completely missing from the legislation. It would handle the application process and determine what skills are required. All parties would have to agree on the required skills, on what is needed, on the candidate's profile, and on the person being sought. The committee would then handle the application process. That could even be done ahead of time. If the committee knew what direction to take, it could start working in advance. If the committee knew which individuals will be leaving their post in six or 12 months, it could begin the work and everyone could agree on the information that would be needed in the application process. That could be done in advance. Then everyone could agree right away on the evaluation grid to be used and on the questions to be asked in the interview. Some of the work could be done before officers of Parliament even leave their position.

It is also important that the committee agree on which candidates should be rejected and which ones should be selected.

With regard to the appointment of the Commissioner of Official Languages, some candidates stated, on condition of anonymity, that they had no idea why they were not selected and that the questions they were asked were ridiculous. They even said they had doubts about the seriousness of the process, so naturally, we have serious concerns. Discussions were held in secret and we have no idea what was said. We only know which candidate was selected.

We were able to ask questions of the person appointed when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, but we were not able to ask questions of the other 69 people who applied. We were not able to voice our opinion about the suitability of each candidate, and we absolutely were not involved in any step of the process. That raises serious doubts. These people are appointed to serve Parliament and not the Liberal government. We must ensure that they do the best possible work in a non-partisan fashion.

When we hear the Liberals claim that partisan appointments are a thing of the past given what we know about what happened with Madeleine Meilleur, what can we do but laugh? It just so happened that a former Liberal minister was the most qualified person for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. We were not told who the other candidates were, what questions were asked in the interview or what process was followed, but we were asked to believe that she was the best person for the job. Quite frankly, who would believe that? Even someone who does not follow politics would realize that it is nonsense. It is time to put a stop to that.

The government was supposed to institute democratic reform to ensure that every vote counts, but when people did not give it the answer it wanted to hear, the whole thing was dropped.

Now we have an opportunity to make changes and to do something about partisan appointments. Though they may be minor, these changes are very important for democracy, our institutions, and Parliament. The nine officers of Parliament are there to help Parliament and, unfortunately, sometimes to conduct investigations. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner investigated the Prime Minister and this government's Minister of Finance. When we know that ministers and prime ministers can be investigated, then we have to select people who will have the courage to make appropriate decisions, who will be able to do the work and not be afraid to do it, people who got their appointment because they were truly the most qualified of all the candidates.

If the process is totally flawed from the start people will not be able to trust the decisions made by officers of Parliament. Today, we can do something about that. The motion does not clearly explain the process in detail, but if adopted, the government could implement this process and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could study it and work out the details.

The purpose of the motion is not to establish the whole committee membership process and all of the other details. The purpose of the motion is simply to propose the idea. If the government and our Conservative colleagues had the courage to at least support this motion and admit that it is time for an intelligent, democratic process to appoint officers of Parliament, we could all work together on the details. We could then develop this new process and start the next Parliament off on the right foot. My colleague will unfortunately not be here to lend us his experience.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate in response to the motion by the member for Hamilton Centre and to speak about our government's commitment of the highest standards of openness and transparency.

In February 2016, this government took steps to put in place a more rigorous approach to Governor in Council appointments, an approach that is founded on the principles of openness, transparency and merit. These changes also apply to the process to appoint officers of Parliament.

Anyone who is interested in a position and feels he or she has the necessary qualifications can apply. In the two years since we launched the new process, more than 23,000 applications have been submitted for Governor in Council opportunities in upwards of 200 federal organizations.

The process is also transparent. Governor in Council appointment opportunities and information about the process are available online to the public. It is also merit-based, grounded in a rigorous selection process, with established selection criteria for each Governor in Council appointed position. Candidates are assessed against the publicly available selection criteria.

Underpinning these principles is the government's commitment to diversity and employment equity. When it comes time for a minister to consider whom to recommend for a Governor in Council appointment, the process ensures that the candidates presented to the minister for consideration reflect the linguistic, regional and diversity considerations that inform this government's choices.

Since 2016, the government has made over 750 appointments following an open, transparent and merit-based selection process. Of these appointees, over 50% self-identified as women, about 13% as visible minorities, about 10% as indigenous peoples and around 4% as persons with disabilities. This number includes the appointment of six officers in Parliament and there are currently selection processes under way to fill two more of these positions. There are 11 officers of Parliament. With all of these, parliamentarians have played, and do play, a significant role. I will speak more on this later.

We are delivering on our commitment to Canadians to ensure that our democratic institutions reflect the diversity of our country. About 1,500 Governor in Council appointed positions, including officers of Parliament positions, are subject to this new approach and have been put in place by a system that ensures these opportunities are open to all Canadians. I will take a few moments to explain how this new system works.

First, a notice of appointment opportunity is developed and posted on the Governor in Council appointments website. A link to the notice is also posted on the Canada Gazette website and the website of the organization that is filling the position. A recruitment strategy is developed for every selection process to identify people who are interested, willing and able to serve. This may include engaging an executive search firm or developing an advertising strategy and may also involve targeted outreach to communities of interest, such as professional associations and stakeholders.

Candidates must register and submit their applications online through the Governor in Council appointments website. Only those candidates who apply online will be considered. In this way, an even playing field is created for all individuals who are interested in a Governor in Council appointments and who want to put their names forward for candidacy.

This government also encourages members of the House, as well as the Senate, to reach out to their constituents to apply for positions that are of interest to them.

This open, transparent and merit-based approach for selection processes is no different for an officer of Parliament position. For these key leadership positions, if an individual meets the selection criteria, which in some cases may be entrenched in legislation such as for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner position, then there is nothing stopping that individual from applying online and submitting his or her candidacy.

What is also new is that the processes to fill these positions also include an invitation to parliamentarians of all stripes to have their say at the outset of the selection process. Following the launch of this process for an officer of Parliament position, our government has taken the unique step of sending letters of engagement to the leaders and critics of both opposition parties in Parliament. We have also sent letters to the Speakers of both Houses in respect of the reporting relationship of some of these positions. The purpose of these letters is to provide information about the position and invite input, including the names of qualified candidates who may be interested in applying.

I think it is important to emphasize that these are letters that are not required in the statute. They exemplify the openness and transparency of our government, as well as respect for the input and perspectives of elected officials.

Parliament has a key role in this new approach to Governor in Council positions, in particular with respect to officers of Parliament. Enabling legislation for most officers of Parliament positions requires the government to consult with the leaders of the recognized parties in the House of Commons or the Senate or both. We have been meeting these obligations. Mr. Speaker, your ruling on this very matter last year, on May 29, 2017, confirmed this. To be clear, this is a first step in an already very robust parliamentary process for these positions.

As we know, a nominee for an officer of Parliament position is usually invited to appear before the appropriate committee of this House, the Senate or both houses. During the committee appearance, the parliamentarians ask the nominee questions about his or her qualifications for the position. Legislation also requires approval by resolution of one or both houses of Parliament. There are opportunities throughout, beginning as soon as a process is launched, for parliamentarians to weigh in on candidates who could apply and ultimately on the appointment of a candidate.

As I have already stated, the government has made significant progress in filling important positions in our democratic institutions, including agencies, boards, commissions, administrative tribunals, Crown corporations, and we are including officers of Parliament positions. We are committed to timely selection processes that ensure democratic institutions have high-calibre appointees to provide excellent services to Canadians.

I think the Speaker wants to interrupt me as we are coming to the end. I would be happy to pick it up at the second hour of debate on this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The time provided for consideration of private members' business is now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment Insurance

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 24, 2018, I asked the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in the House when he and his Prime Minister would keep their word and increase the 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits.

The Liberals once again demonstrated their lack of interest in our most vulnerable citizens by ignoring a motion that I moved before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to review the EI sickness benefits program, which currently provides for 15 weeks of benefits.

Had the committee conducted a study and heard from experts, sick workers, and unemployed workers, the government would have seen that this outdated legislation needs to be updated. This study would have led to a comprehensive report being tabled in the House with practical recommendations regarding the usefulness of the statutory 15 weeks of sickness benefits.

I am astonished that the Liberals rejected this request for consultation out of hand, considering how much they like to consult. I am especially disappointed because hundreds of thousands of people need those benefits. What are the Liberals so afraid of?

They repeatedly promised to review the Employment Insurance Act, which was last changed nearly 50 years ago. The act is way out of step with what today's society needs. The sickness benefits program still lasts only 15 weeks, and thousands of families and sick people find it hard to make ends meet as a result. How can a low-income patient get by financially under such conditions? As I have repeatedly told the House, a seriously ill person cannot get better by the time their 15-week benefit period ends. That is deplorable.

This law has remained unchanged since 1971 and is causing financial insecurity for thousands. Over one-third of current beneficiaries need much more than the 15 weeks provided for under the program. People recovering from cancer need 52 weeks on average to get better.

The government should make this issue a top priority and update the law to ensure that it reflects what Canadians need at this point in time, now that one in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lives, according to the Canadian Cancer Society. The time to act is now.

Inspired by her own experience, Marie-Hélène Dubé has been taking on the federal government over its inaction on this file for nearly 10 years. Ms. Dubé created an online petition called “15 weeks to heal is not enough!”, which has been signed by 600,000 Canadians who are calling on the government to extend sickness benefits to offer the best possible conditions for recovery.

I will be holding a town hall meeting on the theme of “15 weeks to heal is not enough”. I invite the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton to come meet their neighbour, Mélanie Pelletier, who, like hundreds of thousands of people, exhausted her EI sickness benefits. I was deeply moved by Mélanie's story, and I invite all of my constituents to come support our neighbour Mélanie and the thousands of people like her who need more than 15 weeks to heal. I hope to see many of my constituents there.

Once again, the government has failed to keep its promises. The 15-week sickness benefit system has been around for 47 years now and is completely outdated.

This should not be a partisan issue.

[Bernadette Jordan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for raising the issue of employment insurance. I am proud to stand before the House and remind my hon. colleague about the good work our government is doing on this front.

Our EI program delivers approximately $18 billion in benefits to nearly two million Canadians annually. It is one of the most important programs that make up the core of our social support system. Canadians benefit from an employment insurance program that is dynamic and designed to respond automatically to changes in an EI economic region's unemployment rate. This helps to ensure that people residing in similar labour markets are treated similarly, with the amount of assistance provided adjusted according to the changing regional economic conditions.

In regions and in communities across Canada, our EI program is providing income security for our families and workers during periods of unemployment. Since taking office, we have made it our duty to improve the employment insurance program so that it remains relevant to Canadian workers, including seasonal workers, and better corresponds to the realities of today's labour market.

For example, we have eliminated some restrictive EI eligibility requirements for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force and simplified job search responsibilities for claimants. We reduced the EI waiting period from two weeks to one. Shortening this waiting period eases the financial strains on EI claimants at the beginning of a claim, and we expect this to put an additional $650 million in the pockets of Canadians annually.

We are also saving Canadians money through reduced EI premiums paid by workers and employers. In fact, the 2017-18 rates are the lowest since 1982. In the fall of 2018, eligible Canadians who lose their jobs after several years in the workforce will have more opportunities to upgrade their skills without losing their EI benefits.

Most recently, we implemented new EI measures that support Canadian families through more flexible maternity and parental benefits and more inclusive care giving benefits. These improvements came into effect on December 3, 2017, and provide enhanced support for Canadian families.

Furthermore, as part of budget 2018, we are proposing legislation to make the default rules of the current working while on claim pilot project permanent and expand it to sickness and maternity claimants, who currently have their benefits reduced dollar for dollar if they earn income while on claim. The working while on claim rules help claimants stay connected with the labour market by encouraging them to accept available work and earn some additional income while still receiving EI benefits. By working while on claim, seasonal claimants can also accumulate hours toward establishing their next EI claim.

These are just some of the ways we have taken action to improve employment insurance so that more Canadians, including seasonal workers, get the help they need when they need it.

As was announced in budget 2018, we have reallocated $10 million from existing departmental resources to provide immediate income support and training to affected workers. The government has signed agreements with the governments of the most affected provinces to deliver this funding. Provinces will have the flexibility to deliver a wide range of supports, including career counselling, workplace essential skills training and associated income supports while on training.

Budget 2018 also proposes to invest $80 million in 2018-19 and $150 million in 2019-20 through labour market development agreements with key provinces to co-develop local solutions that can be tested to support workforce development. These measures will help ensure that unemployed workers in Canada's seasonal industries have access to the supports they need when they need them the most.

Our government understands that seasonal industries are a key part of Canada's economy. Important sectors of our economy, such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, and construction, rely on seasonal workers. We are working hard to support those workers and industries, to the benefit of our economy and all Canadians, and we will continue to do so.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just explained what EI provides, but the problem is what it does not provide. Fifteen weeks is not enough. If my colleague wants to talk about employment insurance in general, I can tell her about the six in 10 workers who do not have access to employment insurance.

She talked about seasonal workers. I would like her to listen to fishery workers from New Brunswick, workers from eastern Quebec, seasonal workers from the north shore and those from Charlevoix who end up in increasingly longer spring gaps.

However, I wanted to talk about employment insurance sickness benefits. I now have doctors in my riding contacting me to say that it makes no sense that their patients are being forced to go back to work. This should be an issue that brings us all together in the interest of claimants and their families.

When does the government plan to take real action and improve employment insurance sickness benefits so that people do not end up—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Speaker, we understand how important Canada's employment insurance program is in providing income security for families and for workers during periods of unemployment.

The improvements our government has made to our EI program have strengthened Canada's social safety network for all workers right across the country, including the seasonal workers that my hon. colleague referred to.

Important sectors of our economy rely on seasonal labour and those workers deserve our full support and our continued commitment to ensure their well-being. That is why we will continue to be there for seasonal workers and our seasonal industries. It is the right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do. It creates a stronger economy for all Canadians.

I am proud of our government's work on this front. We will continue to help Canadians when they need it most through a robust and dynamic employment insurance program.

Democratic Reform

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House on May 25, in regard to the government shutting down debate on Bill C-76. This week, Bill C-76 returns to the House for debate at report stage.

We are three years into the Liberal majority mandate. Canadians trusted the Liberals to follow through on their big democratic reform promises. We all remember the big promise from the now Prime Minister that the 2015 election would be the last under the first-past-the-post system.

In Vancouver East, like many MPs, I held a town hall and consulted with my constituents. Overwhelmingly, the people of Vancouver East wanted to see a new voting system. They wanted every vote to count. They wanted to see proportional representation. This was echoed through the extensive consultation the committee undertook.

Sadly, after the election, the Prime Minister suggested that Canadians, "have a government they are most satisfied with” and “the motivation to want to change the electoral system is less urgent”. ln a truly disappointing show of brazen partisan bias, the Prime Minister then abruptly abandoned the promise to Canadians.

That is not what democracy is, and I hope that this broken promise, an insult to Canadians, is not forgotten in 2019.

As I said, after three years, we are only now reaching the report stage of a democratic reform bill. One may wonder what took so long.

Stéphane Perrault, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, made it clear that any major electoral reforms needed to be passed by the end of April 2018. The 230-page Bill C-76 was not even tabled until April 30.

The Liberal government is treating democratic reform like stereotypical procrastinating high school students that no one likes working with on an important group project. They show up at the last minute. They do not do what they told everyone that they were going to do. Then they have the audacity to impose things on the rest of the group so that the work will fit into their schedule.

That is exactly what the Liberals did when they broke another democratic reform promise to Canadians by shutting down debate on an election bill.

Now that the bill is back in the House to be debated at report stage, my colleague the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has informed me that the government continues to be the group partner nobody wants.

Bill amendments are like editing our legislative work. Unfortunately, the Liberal government, after showing up at the last minute and not completing the work it said it would do, refused to accept edits to fix the holes and missing pieces in its work.

My colleague, a tireless champion for improving Canada's democracy, tried to ensure that Bill C-76 protected voter information. He tried to strengthen privacy protections to prevent election meddling in the digital age. Those were rejected.

He tried to push the gender equality initiative of Kennedy Stewart, my former colleague and now mayor of Vancouver. The government would not even talk about it.

Why has the government broken so many promises to Canadians on this issue? Why has it put partisan interests ahead of improving our institutions? Why has it failed to move on legislation on electoral reform for so long?

[Bernadette Jordan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House tonight to respond to the question from the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, which the government introduced on April 30. This legislation represents a generational overhaul to the Canada Elections Act, which will improve transparency, fairness, integrity and participation in Canada's electoral system.

The proposed legislation will reduce barriers for Canadian Armed Forces members and persons with disabilities. It will establish a pre-election period with transparency requirements and spending limits for political parties and third parties. It will modernize the administration of elections to make it easier for Canadians to vote and more difficult for elections law-breakers to evade punishments.

The preamble to the question posed by the hon. member for Vancouver East referenced indigenous Canadians, which I would like to address.

Bill C-76 is aimed at reducing barriers to participation in federal elections and increasing accessibility for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples.

The former chief electoral officer's recommendations following the 2015 general federal election indicated that the proof of address requirement was difficult to meet for many and, in some cases, presented a significant barrier to voting for Canadians. Moreover, the same report stated that this was particularly true for youth, homeless electors, seniors living in long-term care facilities, as well as indigenous peoples hoping to cast their ballots.

It was for this reason that the Chief Electoral Officer authorized the use of the voter information card, commonly known as the “VIC”, in several pilot projects. When the VIC is used as proof of address, together with another document proving identity, it will help electors who otherwise may have difficulty meeting the identification requirements.

Consequently, the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that the prohibition on authorizing the VIC as a piece of identification to establish address be removed from the Canada Elections Act.

I am pleased to remind members of the House that Bill C-76 would reverse elements of the Harper Conservatives' so-called Fair Elections Act, which increased barriers to participation in our electoral process. Notably, and for the purposes of debate in the House, Bill C-76 would reinstate both the ability for electors to vouch, as well the use of the voter information card, as proof of address.

The legislation also contains many other measures aimed to ensure that barriers to electoral participation that Canadians currently face are reduced or eliminated and that our federal elections are made more accessible to voters.

I will also remind the House that the current Chief Electoral Officer, as well numerous other witnesses who testified at the Standing Committee for Procedure and House Affairs, agreed that restoring both vouching and the use of the voter information card would return the franchise to Canadians across the country. In fact, I have heard from citizens in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets that this will indeed assist and encourage them to get out to vote during the next federal election.

Bill C-76 would also restore the communications mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer and would allow Elections Canada to conduct increased outreach initiatives, including with members of first nations communities. It would also be possible to have advance polls in different locations on each day to better serve remote and isolated communities.

I encourage all hon. members to support this legislation, which would reinforce confidence in the integrity, fairness and transparency of Canada's electoral system.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is as if the parliamentary secretary did not hear a thing I said.

The timeline speaks for itself. The Liberals have abandoned key democratic reform promises. They failed to move significant electoral legislation until the deadline on which it needed to have been passed. Then they broke another promise by shutting down debate on an election bill. Now they have rejected important amendments to safeguard our elections from digital meddling campaigns.

It is clear the pre-November 2015 Liberals and the current Liberal government have very different views on democracy and democratic reform. Why? Because it is not in the best political interest of the Liberals.

The Prime Minister took the electorate for fools. Let us send a message in 2019.