The Privy Council Office assists the Clerk of the Privy Council Office in providing professional, support to the Prime Minister in his or her role as head of government on all policy and operational issues. This includes advice and support on appointments to certain positions in the government, such as deputy ministers and heads of agencies, and the structure and functioning of government. Under section 53 (1) of the Privacy Act, the Privacy Commissioner is appointed by the Governor in Council (Prime Minister) following approval of the appointment by the House of Commons and the Senate.

The audit found that the former Privacy Commissioner had been given “little or no orientation” to public service organizational culture beyond the provision of two information booklets. It also found no evidence that the former Commissioner had been sworn into office. (Paragraphs 189, 190).

In its initial response to the audit, the Privy Council Office indicated that since the autumn of 2002, it has been arranging customized orientation sessions for new heads of agencies and Crown corporations. PCO witnesses added that the Office is working with the Canadian Centre for Management Development to develop a new formal training program designed for Governor-in-Council appointments aimed at increasing their knowledge and understanding of Public Service principles and rules. The Committee believes that this is an appropriate step to take, but notes that in the Privy Council Office’s initial orientation sessions begun in autumn 2002, a number of sessions dealing with subjects directly related to problem areas highlighted by the audit were made optional. The Committee is therefore concerned that these subjects be included in the new training program as required elements, and recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 17

That the Privy Council Office, working with the Canadian Centre for Management Development, include the following subjects as required elements in the new training program for Governor-in-Council appointees: How Government Operates; Business Planning and Expenditure Management; Performance Measurement and Reporting to Parliament; Human Resources Management; and Access to Information Act and Privacy Act (for organizations subject to these Acts).

Parliament must be informed about the progress of implementing this new formal training program and then receive annual information on its performance. Accordingly, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 18

That Privy Council Office inform the House of Commons of the commencement date and content of the formal training program for Governor-in-Council appointees and then, in subsequent performance reports, provide information on the number of appointees trained and any subsequent changes made to course content.

Members of Parliament have shown a great deal of interest in the necessity for Order-in-Council appointees to possess sufficient familiarity with both the culture and internal policies of the Public Service of Canada. The Committee therefore strongly suggests that the Privy Council Office and the Canadian Centre for Management Development extend an invitation to all parliamentarians to attend a briefing and question-and-answer session on the new training program.

While the Committee approves the decision to offer training to Order-in-Council appointees, it has a number of concerns that involve the work of the Privy Council Office itself in the appointment process. The Committee was very surprised to learn that despite the fact that the departure date for the previous Privacy Commissioner was known well in advance, the Privy Council Office did not conduct a search for possible replacements with the consequence that Mr. Radwanski was appointed on a interim basis and there were no alternative candidates for the position to chose from. While the Committee believes that it should not really be necessary to do so, it nonetheless recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 19

That Privy Council Office conduct thorough candidate searches for all officers of Parliament in sufficient advance of vacancy to ensure that there are several candidates to chose from and that each candidate possess the experience and integrity required to qualify for the position.

Parliamentarians have a vital interest in those who become officers of Parliament and must have a meaningful say in their appointment. This role is currently codified in Standing Order 111.1 of the House:

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

The Committee believes that some consideration ought to be given to strengthening this Standing Order and therefore recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 20

That the House of Commons consider amending Standing Order 111.1(1) by deleting the word “may” and replacing it with the word “shall”.