LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

For over three years, two successive governments have been looking to replace the federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.  Mary Dawson's initial term expired in 2014, and was given a three-year extension, the first of which expired in December and was renewed for another six months.  Those six months expire in July, and Dawson has stated that she is not interested in re-appointment.

The problem?  That the criteria for who a new Commissioner should be is extremely narrow.  In the zeal over recent years to go after the ethics files of successive governments, and to find unimpeachable Independent Officer of Parliament to do the work of going after said governments, the legislation stipulates that a future Ethics Commissioner must be a former superior court judge, or the head of a quasi-judicial tribunal that has expertise in conflicts of interest, financial arrangements, professional regulation and discipline or ethics.  That, or be a former Ethics Commission or Senate Ethics Officer, and oh, they need to be fully bilingual at the time of appointment on top of that.

Looking over these criteria, it's clear that Dawson, a former Associate Deputy Minister from the Department of Justice, wouldn't be qualified to fill her own current role, which is something that should probably be kept top of mind while we worry that there appears to be no new Commissioner in the offing.  After all, how many former bilingual judges are really out there?  Even expanding this to tribunal heads with relevant experience, it's still a vanishingly small number, and most of them would be of an age where they are likely looking forward to their retirement, or at the most, semi-retirement with some consulting work or part-time practice at a prestige law firm.  How many would really be looking for a seven-year term in a job where they will be constantly under the glare of the media, and harassed by self-appointed watchdog groups for whom nothing they do is ever good enough, especially if they are likely to be extended while the search for their replacement becomes as interminable as the process to replace Dawson has become?

Another problem is likely to be with the appointment process by which this government operates, which purports to be more open and transparent, but one that relies on self-selection instead of nomination.  This process has proven to be somewhat problematic with things like Senate appointments, where they get flooded with the requests of narcissists than they do with qualified individuals who think that they can contribute to public life in this particular fashion.  If the government process relies on self-nomination with such a tiny pool of qualified candidates, one has to wonder how many people are bothering to apply, as opposed to whether there was someone in the PMO who took the criteria and then went looking for a short-list to nominate something that might be easier given the small pool of candidates available for this position.

And then, as if that weren't enough, there is the politics of it all.  In recent weeks, with the nomination of Madeleine Meilleur for the position of Official Languages Commissioner, the focus in parliament has turned this kind of process into a toxic swamp of allegation and disingenuous concern for the sanctity of the process.  Because Meilleur had been a partisan Ontario Liberal and indeed a former provincial cabinet minister and had donated to the federal Liberals and indeed to Justin Trudeau's leadership campaign, the narrative is that she "bought" the position.  Daily in Question Period, the question is now what the price for the Ethics Commissioner appointment is, along with the suggestion that the appointment process is an "auction."  Never mind that the criteria for appointment are strict, so the very notion that the government is holding out for a bilingual former judge who is also a high-rolling party donor (in a country where political donation limits are quite small) makes no sense and is doing active disservice to the selection process.

Added to that, the sheer volume of politicking that surrounds the ongoing allegations of wrongdoing with respect to the prime minister's Christmas vacation to the Aga Khan's private island and the possible investigation that Mary Dawson may or may not be carrying out with regards to it complicates the situation even further.  Because Trudeau knew the optics of him choosing Dawson's replacement with this cloud hanging over him were bad, he turned over the management of that process to his House leader, Bardish Chagger, but this is not good enough for the opposition.  Instead, we have seen demands that the government wait for it appoint a former judge to oversee the process in a non-partisan fashion.

So, to be clear, the opposition wants a former judge to find a bilingual former judge to fill the position.  Because there's no possible way that there would be a perceived conflict of interest right there with someone nominating one of their peers from a very small pool.  But this is what mindless partisanship will get you (and this isn't even getting into the rank hypocrisy of the cries of the Conservatives, who appointed one of their own former cabinet ministers, Vic Toews, to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench).

With all of these factors in mind, we have to raise the very legitimate question of whether we will see any actual interest from that small pool of candidates to fill the position particularly if they will immediately be subjected to suspicion for the suggestion that they are simply being appointed to let Trudeau off of any of the investigations into his alleged misdeeds.  And if we aren't seeing any bilingual former judges or tribunal heads submitting their names to this job, does this mean what Mary Dawson will see her term extended again, and yet again, in perpetuity because nobody wants the job?  Given the way things are going, it's starting to feel like a very real possibility.

Photo Credit: Huffington Post

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.