Canadian Government Executive - Volume 22 - Issue 4

30 / 32

30 / Canadian Government Executive // April 2016
One of the most important powers at the disposal of
Canadian prime ministers is the ability to appoint in-
dividuals to public organizations or advisory commit-
tees. While most people know about the role prime
ministers play in appointing their cabinet or senators, it is not
generally known that prime ministers, often in concert with the
relevant ministers, also play a significant role in recommending
an array of people to a wide range of organizations. As a conse-
quence, over the course of a four-year mandate, a prime minister
could potentially be involved in more than 3,000 full and part-
time appointments.
This prerogative includes the appointment of CEOs and mem-
bers of boards of directors to large public organizations such as
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or Export Development
Canada as well as part-time appointments for small advisory
groups. In addition, the prime minister proposes the appoint-
ment of all Supreme and Federal Court judges, all ambassadors
and heads of missions abroad, and all deputy ministers.
Canada has rightfully earned an international reputation for
good public management and robust accountability systems but
one area where we have lagged behind other comparator coun-
tries is the way in which the federal government appoints public
office holders.
Since being sworn in as Canada’s prime minister, Justin
Trudeau has aggressively followed up on many of his election
promises, including his commitment to modernize the current
appointment process. The issue was given particular promi-
nence during the election when it was discovered that, in the last
months of the Conservative government, Prime Minister Harper
had appointed 33 people whose terms would extend well beyond
the mandate of his government.
In the mandate letter that the Prime Minister sent to his newly
elected Minister of Democratic Institutions, Maryam Monsef, her
“overarching goal will be to strengthen the openness and fairness
of Canada’s public institutions.” She was also directed to play a
major role in fulfilling the government’s commitment to transpar-
ent, merit-based appointments.
In February the new government gave further indications
where they are heading with their reform package when they is-
sued a statement that reemphasized how the new appointment
system, in contrast to earlier ones, would be based on “an open,
transparent and merit-based selection process,” meet gender and
diversity guidelines, and introduce a rigorous selection process
that compares applicants’ skills to the requirements of the job.
This is a very encouraging start and, given that Canada is more
than twenty years behind comparator nations, this gives policy
makers the opportunity to give full consideration to their best
practices. For example, the British government created a Cen-
tre for Public Appointments in 1995 after many concerns were
raised in Parliament and the media about the conduct and stan-
dards of those in public life. As a result, sweeping changes were
introduced that were anchored around this new Centre which
promotes public appointments, identifies potential public office
holders and manages a selection process that gives Ministers or
the prime minister an opportunity to meet the most qualified can-
didates prior to making a final decision.
In Australia, the federal government created a similar body. Aus-
GovBoard has a more limited function than its British counterpart
in the sense that it is primarily concerned with public agencies.
Nonetheless, AusGovBoard is an online information source for
more than 400 government boards that provides information to
potential appointees on board descriptions, current vacancies, ap-
pointment terms and expiry dates.
In Canada, the government of Ontario has created the Public
Appointments Secretariat where ‘all Ontarians have an up-to-date
and accurate picture of the vacancies and the timetable for filling
them. As in the case of the UK and Australia, the Secretariat is
also designed ‘to ensure that these agencies are made up of mem-
bers who are qualified to do the job’ and who are representative
of all segments of Ontario society.
Currently the federal government is looking at options to make
the system more transparent and representative of Canada’s di-
versity, and allow for more meritorious appointments. Since early
March, as an interim measure, the PCO has mounted a website
for potential board mem-
bers to register their interest in serving on a commission, board,
Crown corporation, agency or tribunal. In order to give full effect
to their efforts, the prime minister has also pledged to limit ap-
pointments to those that are essential and, in those circumstanc-
es, only for a one-year mandate to ensure that appointments will
fall under the new regime.
The opportunity to align Canada’s governance structure with
its principles is at hand. The government has already addressed
some of the issues around Senate and electoral reform and its re-
fashioning of the appointment process will be another building
block in strengthening of Canada’s democratic institutions.
The federal government should be congratulated for making
the reform of the appointment process a priority among a long
list of many other worthy and competing ones. However, this op-
portunity must not be squandered in its haste to check off another
election promise before moving on to the next one. Instead, now
is the time to pause long enough to learn from those countries
that have recently reformed their appointment processes in order
to take advantage of best practices.
David Zussman is a Senior Fellow in the Graduate School
of Public and International Affairs at the University of
Ottawa and is Research Advisor to the Public Sector
Practice of Deloitte.
The Last Word David Zussman
The Appointment Process: Time for Change
web
user/12-davidzussman.html