:
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.
Thank you for inviting me to report to your committee on the operations of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat of which I was the Executive Director and Deputy Head from April 21, 2006, until January 21, 2007.
[English]
I'd like to begin my comments by providing committee members with some context.
The Public Appointments Commission Secretariat was creating by order in council on April 21, 2006, and I was appointed by order in council on the same day. Orders in council were also published allowing for the appointment of commissioners. I should add, Madam Chair, which is not in my comments, that in effect, this made the commission secretariat a department within the Prime Minister's portfolio.
[Translation]
At that point in time Bill , made reference to the Public Appointments Commission by proposing a change to the Salaries Act. The draft bill was later amended in committee to include the mandate of the Commission.
Pursuant to section 1.1 in clause 227 of the Federal Accountability Act, the functions of the committee are:
[English]
(a) to oversee, monitor, review and report on the selection process for appointments and reappointments by the Governor in Council to agencies, boards, commissions, and Crown corporations, and to ensure that every such process is widely made public and conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner and that the appointments are based on merit;
(b) to evaluate and approve the selection processes proposed by ministers to fill vacancies and determine reappointments within their portfolios, monitor and review those processes, and ensure that they are implemented as approved, giving special attention to any instances in which ministers make appointments that are inconsistent with the recommendations of appointment panels;
[Translation]
(c) to develop and establish a code of practice for appointments by the governor in council and ministers that sets out the steps that are necessary for a fair, open and transparent appointment process, including requirements for appointments and criteria for appointments to be made fully public;
(d) to audit appointment policies and practices in order to determine whether the code of practice is being observed;
[English]
(e) to report publicly on compliance with the code of practice, in particular by providing an annual report to the Prime Minister to be transmitted to the Speaker of each House of Parliament for tabling and referral to the appropriate committee of that House for study;
(f) to provide public education and training of public servants involved in appointment and reappointment processes regarding the code of practice;
(g) to perform any other function specified by the Governor in Council.
As you can see, Madam Chair, the commission and the secretariat created by order in council, now enshrined in Bill , are mandated to focus on the process related to Governor in Council appointments. I think it's important to underline that neither the commission nor the secretariat have any role to play in the individual appointments themselves. It remains the responsibility of ministers to manage selection processes and to bring forward names for consideration by the Governor in Council.
[Translation]
It is also important to note that the commission's oversight role applies only to the governor-in-council appointments to agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations. It does not include other GIC appointments such as public servants or deputy ministers, the judiciary or ambassadorial postings.
[English]
The secretariat was created to support the commission in meeting its objectives. While the commission itself is in abeyance, the secretariat was asked to continue the staff work necessary to meet these objectives.
I reported regularly to the Clerk of the Privy Council on the secretariat's activities and progress, and on December 8, 2006, I provided a full report to the Treasury Board portfolio advisory committee.
In these reports, I reviewed the broad consultations we undertook with heads of agencies, boards, and crown corporations and their representatives who are responsible for the appointments process; “learnings” we had gleaned from other jurisdictions that have implemented similar reforms to their public appointments process;
[Translation]
early principles to underlie the development of a “code of practice” provided in the bill; and the creation of the secretariat through a Treasury Board submission to access the annual allotment of $1.175 million which had been set aside for the secretariat and commission activities, and relevant staffing activities.
[English]
The secretariat was also asked to review the Immigration and Refugee Board selection and appointment process with a view to enhancing its effectiveness, and to begin an analysis of the relationship between the appointment of board members and governance challenges in institutions with a dominant shareholder--in other words, similar to crown corporations.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, it was a privilege for me to have been asked by the governor in council to be involved in the creation of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat. I was supported by a small and dedicated group of people comprising the deputy executive director, who was at the EX-3 level; a senior officer on loan from Service Canada, who was at the ES-6 level; my assistant who is also the office manager (AS-6); and one clerical support person hired on a casual basis.
[English]
Madam Chair, I trust that this provides you with helpful information. I will try to answer any questions you have.
:
The explanation was that there was a significant amount of work to be done in the places where I am.
I should explain that I have two hats, two positions, at the present point in time--one as senior associate deputy minister at the Department of Indian Affairs, and the other as effectively deputy head of Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada. As you may know, residential schools resolution has moved into a very significant period following agreement by the courts.
I have to assume that I was asked to do that because it was felt that my competencies would apply in those situations.
:
Yes, I can provide you information on that.
Madam Chair, I should point out that I am no longer in this position. I've had to rely on the goodwill of a number of people in providing the information I have. I requested the Privy Council Office, which was the support mechanism for the secretariat, to provide expenditures as of March 26. This includes expenditures while I was in the position and any that may have occurred afterwards.
The total amount, as of March 26, in such things as salary, transport, communications, professional services, rentals, and so on, was $546,922.74. That, Madam Chair, is the information that was provided to me.
:
First of all, we were asked to be in place, and I think it's entirely appropriate to pay people. The bulk of this was salaries.
Second, we did an extensive consultation with heads of agencies, crown corporations, first of all to find out from them what the current practice is, and secondly, to seek guidance on the eventual development of a code of practice, which is mentioned in the appropriate legislation.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for coming here, Mr. Harrison. Knowing you the way I do, I'm not surprised that you have come to appear as an individual despite the fact that you are no longer in this position.
In January, you provided the government with an opinion as part of a report. Can we know exactly what came out of it? Further to the consultations you held with the directors of agencies, you and the other three individuals—which it must be said is a small group given your mandate—were you able to develop tools enabling you to carry out your mandate? Did it enable you to comply with the requests for the Immigration and Refugee Board?
:
Thank you, Ms. Thibault, for your questions. I believe there were two of them. I will begin with your question regarding the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Following discussions with the clerk, we were asked to define the board's mandate and review its procedures. The mandate had been approved by the minister at that time, and we did an analysis in order to ascertain whether effective changes could be made to the procedure implemented in 2004. This report was published and made available on the immigration department website. After consulting experts involved in the procedure and after hearing testimony from the members in order to understand the complexity of their jobs, we made recommendations to the minister.
Our primary objective was to consult with the directors of agencies in order to compare the various procedures and ascertain whether or not we could improve them. These consultations enabled us to draft, in cooperation with them, a series of principles which eventually were to be applied to these procedures. I do hope that these principles will be used as a basis for drafting a code of practice. However, it was not up to the secretariat to draft such a code. I am speaking specifically about the principles that we developed. First of all, we had to respect the prerogative of the governor in council. We were tasked with reviewing the governor in council decision-making process.
Then, in conjunction with the organizations and crown corporations, we developed a principle which we felt was very important and which was also important for our counterparts in other jurisdictions, including British Columbia and the United Kingdom: the principle of proportionality. I am mentioning this because this is a very important tool.
When it is time to staff one of these positions, it is obvious that there is a difference between appointing an individual who will be a member on a steering committee that meets three times a year and that of a CEO of a Crown corporation, for instance. The very important principle that we developed during the course of our consultations was to see how this could be applied in practical terms.
You have to start by developing principles and then discussing the ability of the nominees to fulfil their roles, and to have procedures that are both transparent and fair. There is also the principle stating that appointments should be made in an acceptable time period because, at times, there can be long periods of time—
Madam Chair, we did what we could as professionally and efficiently as possible in the time available. I'm talking about the past, because I've not been involved in this for the last several months, as I was appointed elsewhere, but I believe we did very effective groundwork.
In order to move on a code of practice, the secretariat, which is made up of officials, would need the guidance of the commission. The code of practices that we've looked at elsewhere vary significantly. There are some that are thick tomes of rules and regulations. The movement in a number of jurisdictions is to say the code should be something that is extremely understandable, practical, and meets the objectives, some of which I laid out a minute ago. But the kind of code that the commissioners would like is a decision for the commission to make.
On the role of the secretariat, as in any supportive group—
:
Right. I think there's a misperception that the government is going to nominate people who will work against the agenda that the government promised at election time. I think it's a misperception. There's a sense among some in the opposition that governments must not appoint people who agree with the government's agenda.
We were elected on a very clear platform in the last election. We've always been clear that we will be appointing people who will further the agenda. It's nothing new.
In fact, it's worth saying twice. We are going to appoint people who agree with the agenda that we intend to implement because we were elected on that agenda. This commission is designed to ensure that all the appointees are qualified.
Is that not your understanding of the commission's role?
:
If I may, Madam Chair, that is my understanding of the commission's role.
As I indicated in my opening statement, both the order in council that originally created it and Bill C-2 effectively give the commission an oversight role. The aim is to ensure there are processes in place that lead to the consideration of people who are qualified to do the job. It means there would have to be processes such that it is known that whoever comes forward can do the job.
The ultimate decision is made by the Governor in Council on the advice of the respective minister. It seems to me the decisions the ministers take, to which I have not been privy, will take into account the number of factors you've raised.
As I indicated in my opening comments, where I quoted the legislation, the role of the commission will be to ensure that there are processes in place that lead to the consideration of qualified people for Governor-in-Council appointments.
The commission would, I do believe, having developed a code of practice, ensure, because it has the role of oversight, that there are in place processes to bring that about.
:
Thank you, Madame Chair.
I'd like to welcome you, Mr. Harrison, especially as you're no longer in your previous position and you've made yourself available to this committee. So thank you for that.
I want to begin with your appointment and the functioning of the secretariat.
Of course the issue of accountability was a big issue during the last election. It was a key campaign promise by the Conservative Party. The Accountability Act was a centrepiece of this government's legislative initiatives, and the Accountability Act was passed with a number of amendments. Our party was involved in some of the amendments that we felt strengthened the Accountability Act, especially as it concerned the appointments process, to make the appointments more accountable to broader parliamentary oversight.
You were appointed in April 2006, and the Accountability Act was passed by the House of Commons in June. How did the passage of the Accountability Act change the work that you were doing in your position, if at all?
:
Thank you, Madame Chair.
If I may, I think that's an intriguing question. The order in council that created the secretariat and the commission in the first instance, as I pointed out in my opening comments, was related to the fact that in Bill at that point the reference to the creation of the commission was through a change to the Salaries Act. I am no legal expert, and I'm not an expert in machinery of government, so I do not have the ability to explain why it was done that way.
As you point out, Madame, Bill itself was amended, and effectively the principles, as I read it, of the order in council were included in the legislation. However, and I have not done a total analysis in recent time, the role of the commission would have been increased or is increased because of the fact that the bill is passed. By adding a number of functions, including audit, so the commission would be in the position of looking at what had taken place, the legislation still includes a very key instrument, and that is a report by the chair of the commission to the Prime Minister for tabling through the clerk in both houses of Parliament, which is maintained in the bill.
The bill also requires the development of a code of practice, which the order in council talked about in terms of guidelines. There are those who would argue that guidelines are different from code of practice. My reading of that is that an instrument needs to be developed so that ministers would be able to respond to that, so effectively, the work of the secretariat continued the way it had been, but with the role of the commission enlarged somewhat.
That's the best answer I can give you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for coming here today Dr. Harrison. If I understand correctly, you were appointed on April 21, 2006, and you remained in this position until January 21, namely about nine months: a structure was established, a few individuals were hired, you left, other people left. I believe that at present there is only one individual at the secretariat, who will soon be leaving. So we are left with an empty shell. In your opinion, was this money well spent?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Harrison.
Perhaps we'll follow up from where Mr. Poilievre left off. Specifically, I'll be asking questions relating to the Immigration and Refugee Board and the appointments made therein.
Certainly one of the things you looked at was ensuring that on the list of the appointees was the right combination of knowledge, background, experience, and required competency to perform the functions of an IRB member. One of the ways of testing that competency was through written examinations. If I'm correct, one of your recommendations was to set and apply a pass mark to the examinations to ensure that the candidates met a minimum standard of adequacy, if you want to call it that. Is that correct?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Harrison.
If I understand correctly, the work of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, where you worked for about nine months, involved vetting all of the names in order to provide them to the people who were responsible for filling the positions. Is that an accurate description?
:
Once again, if I may, I would like to clarify something.
The role of the commission does not end there. The commission's mandate involves ensuring that the process is respected by the departments. That involves audits. It is up to the commission to decide how best to proceed.
The act also provides for an annual report by the commission to the Prime Minister, and the report must also be tabled before the House of Commons and the Senate. It is up to the commission to decide how these reports will be drafted, with the support of the secretariat.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Harrison, for being here today.
I want to follow up a bit with the questions relating to the IRB. I understand that in your report you made nine recommendations to the , and it's my understanding that the minister has made a statement that those recommendations are accepted.
I want to follow up on the fact that 28% of the applicants who wrote the written test failed, and yet these people were recommended to the advisory panel and then to the minister for consideration. Would this not put an undue workload on the advisory panel in terms of the eventual appointments?
:
In order to get a good view of the whole process, we had contracts with Sussex Circle to look at the overall process, and in particular the exam.
The procedures that came into place in 2004 had two different groups involved in the selection process--an advisory panel, and the chair's selection board. The observation was made in the analysis by Sussex Circle that there were probably ways of streamlining a little.
The concern we had when we were doing our analysis was that they were two different groups of people, which meant that two different groups of people had to get up to speed on very complicated data for a large number candidates.
Our recommendation was not that those two should be merged, because we didn't feel we'd been able to flesh out the options enough. Our recommendation to the minister was that consideration be given to merging those two bodies, because we felt there were efficiencies to be gained.
Given the member's comments about the minister's decision to move forward, I have to conclude that consideration has been given, and it is seen to be a move in a direction of greater efficiency.
:
That is indeed correct. When one is dealing with a high volume.... We refer in the report to “stocks and flows”, the stock being the number of people currently in place, and the flow being the number of people whose mandates are completed and the need to replace them.
We found that recently the IRB had undertaken a fast-track process in order to move efficiently and effectively in proposing names to the minister for consideration by the Governor in Council. We recommended that this was of sufficient importance that recruitment campaigns should be undertaken with a frequency that allows for an appropriate level of resourcing, and at times of high vacancy rates the IRB should begin a new recruitment campaign even before the completion of an ongoing recruitment campaign.
Our objective in that was to suggest that since we know there is a churn and a turnover over time, the planning of that should lead to having recruitment exercises appropriately done on an ongoing basis.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Harrison, I would like to go back to a previous statement because I am not sure that I understood you, and I may not be the only one who feels that way.
I am not clear on the role of the secretariat as compared to that of the commission. A few minutes ago, you said that the secretariat had to establish a code of practice for the commission. Is that right?
:
The system was a relatively simple one, even though it always seems complicated when I explain it.
The approach was multi-faceted, so I will try to provide a context. Some appointments to an advisory board are made by ministers, within their department, but that is not what we are talking about.
Some appointments are put forward to the governor in council by ministers, in other words, they are submitted to cabinet, and are approved by the governor in council.
Each department has a process to provide ministers with lists of qualified individuals. There is a practice among a growing number of departments to make a selection according to certain criteria and standards that are related to the qualifications of the individuals.
The word "appointment" has a different connotation in English and in French. The order is the instrument that is used to allow these people to begin serving in their position, and it is the ministers' responsibility. There are also, however, key appointments, for example, the CEOs of crown corporations, the presidents, and people who hold the higher-ranking positions. The Privy Council Office is responsible for the selection process for those individuals.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Harrison, in 2004, the committee heard from witnesses who explained that for some boards—and I don't remember which ones—the appointment process was rather loosely structured.
At the time, Mr. Poilievre and some of his colleagues sat beside me, and Madam Chair and her colleagues were across the table. The committee members found it rather disquieting to hear what some of these directors had to say. For example, one chairman told us that he had chosen one, two or three candidates. When asked how he ensured that these people were competent and able to do the job—they were business people, people with experience—if they represented a cross-section of Canadian society or if they were bilingual, he said that all of the documents used by the board of directors were translated and since most people spoke English, there was really no problem. That's the type of thing we were told, and many of us found that somewhat worrisome.
In your documents and in your presentation, you say that you want the selection process to be well advertised, and you want it to be fair, open and transparent, and based on merit. That means—and I hope you will confirm this—that criteria such as representativeness will be taken into account so that visible minorities, women, aboriginal people, etc., as well as bilingual people, anglophones and francophones will all be considered. I have no doubt about the merit, nor about the fact that both you and your successor were hoping to find qualified people.
I would like to come back to the question that I asked earlier. Do you think that in the short term, the secretariat, with the necessary staff to do the job—we know that come Monday morning, there will be nobody left to do it—will allow federal organizations to ensure that their recruiting will become a noble cause, as you said, with the criteria that I have just listed? We don't know who will be selected, but can we have the assurance that people will have the tools that they need and the ministers will have no reason not to appoint the most worthy candidates?
:
Thank you, Ms. Thibault.
Madam Chair, diversity and representativeness were key considerations in all of our discussions on the code of practice. Certain elements must be included because of the act, but, as you said, we must also take into account the representation of the regions, etc., of Canada.
I hope that these factors will play an important role in future appointments. The fact that these appointments are made by the governor in council provides ministers with the necessary flexibility to consider a list of competent individuals and use their best judgment to meet the objectives that you have listed.
You also mentioned boards of directors. For some time now there has been an attempt to define what qualifications are required. We were studying that for the clerk. It is obvious that in the case of a crown corporation's board of directors, depending on the field of activity and its objectives, you would require experienced people such as lawyers or engineers, people from eastern or western Canada, francophones, etc. We came up with an idea that was implemented some time ago by the Privy Council Office; it involved a structure based on qualifications. Therefore, when a position becomes vacant on a board of directors, the first question is the following one. In view of the type of activity in which this organization is involved, what type of skill do we require? That helped to define the type of selection process that should apply.
Take, for example, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Sometimes, we need someone who is so specialized that there might be only two or three candidates in all of Canada, or even in the world. It is not quite the same as looking for someone who has business experience. In this case, a candidate's name would be considered by the board of directors, by taking into account those who are already there and what the shareholder had in mind.
Let me try to summarize.
It seems that after a year in office, and in spite of the Conservative campaigning on accountability, we now have no greater accountability in appointments. Our party joined with others to make stronger accountability laws that are now being ignored. Worse, the government is explicitly appointing only people who agree with them, thereby politicizing appointments.
We have a secretariat that spent half a million dollars. There are reports of travel not related to the secretariat, to Tuktoyaktuk and other places. By all accounts we have a secretariat where the lights are on but no one's home.
Mr. Harrison, are Canadians being well served by the secretariat you led and by this government's appointments process in general?
:
That's exactly my point.
We have agreed with your recommendation that success on the examination ought to be an unequivocal prerequisite to consideration for those jobs. I'd like to thank you for that recommendation. I think it's a very good recommendation. I think it changes the approach of the previous government, which was not as merit based, and it moves towards an objective system that guarantees that candidates for positions on these boards will be qualified. I think, on behalf of Canadians, you're owed some thanks for your work on this report.
Mr. Warkentin, did you want to ask a few questions?
:
If there's a little bit of time, yes.
I think Mr. Poilievre did cover a number of things, and I did want to thank you. I don't want you to leave here believing that your work on what you call a noble cause--I would call it an essential cause--has gone without thanks. We do appreciate it.
As was pointed out, of this $500,000 that's been spent to reinforce our ideological perspective that accountability and transparency and better government can be provided to Canadians, there's no doubt that $500,000 is a small price to pay for the momentous work you are undertaking and beginning. I absolutely thank you, and I know that it's going to go a great distance in ensuring that Canadians will get good government moving forward and a good bureaucracy to follow.
Thank you very much. We do appreciate your efforts.
If you don't work there, and nobody works there, the work has stopped. Why did the work stop? There must be some reason.
If we had to tell Canadians why they spent this money setting up the secretariat, but it's not doing anything today, then someone might ask why. What would you respond?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Turner.
Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison. I know this was difficult for you, and you came as an individual. Sometimes the questions were a little tough, and I think you handled yourself very well. Thank you very much.
I would like to remind the committee that next Thursday we are dealing with the human resources challenge for the federal government, and we will be hearing as witnesses representatives of the two public service unions.
Yes, Madame Nash.