Hon. Pierre De Bané:

Honourable senators, I ask leave of the Senate to table, in both official languages, the notice for the position of vice-chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission published in the Canada Gazette in June 2010.

Honourable senators, yesterday, in response to a question that I put to the honourable Leader of the Government, the leader said she was amazed by my question and asked why I was so obsessed with putting those questions to her.

I have here the 23 questions that I asked of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Except for her repeated statement that the selection of the vice-chair of the CRTC followed a rigorous, transparent, impartial and independent process, she has answered none of the 23 questions I put to her.

If the system, the procedure and the selection of the vice-chair was rigorous, independent, impartial and transparent, why were none of the 23 questions I put ever answered?

That process is particularly troublesome in light of the commitment that the Prime Minister made in 2006 when he said that he was going "change the way business is done in Ottawa forever."

The then President of the Treasury Board, Minister Baird, upon the introduction of Bill C-2, promised that the Accountability Act would transform how things are done in Ottawa.

There is absolutely no way that an independent, rigorous selection committee could have appointed to that position a lawyer who specialized in criminal law in Montreal.

Let me read to you a few sentences of the three-page document that was published in the Canada Gazette:

The CRTC is responsible for regulating and supervising all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the policy set out in the Canadian Broadcasting Act. It also regulates telecommunications in Canada to implement the policy set out in the Telecommunications Act.

Reporting to the Chairperson of the CRTC, the Vice-Chairperson is responsible for assisting the Chairperson in providing effective leadership to the Commission, assuming responsibility for broadcasting issues, and providing executive support in the management of an independent regulatory body.

Extensive experience in providing corporate direction and leadership is required, as well as experience in the operation and conduct of a quasi-judicial tribunal, an agency or an equivalent.

The qualified candidate should possess proven senior level decision-making experience with respect to sensitive and complex issues. The position requires experience in developing, maintaining and managing successful stakeholder relationships and partnerships.

The suitable candidate should possess extensive knowledge of the legislative framework and mandate of the CRTC; knowledge of the theories, practices and procedures related to administrative justice, especially related to quasi-judicial bodies; and an understanding of the relevant global, societal and economic trends, stakeholders' concerns, the government's policy agenda and how it relates to the CRTC.

I could continue on like that for another three pages.

In English, it lists these qualifications: extensive experience in providing corporate direction and leadership; experience in the operation and conduct of quasi-judicial tribunal, an agency or equivalent; proven senior level decision-making experience with respect to sensitive and complex issues; experience in developing, maintaining and managing successful stakeholder relationships and partnerships within and outside an organization; and experience formulating cultural and regulatory policy.

Under "knowledge that would be considered an asset," it lists: extensive knowledge of the legislative framework and mandate of the CRTC; knowledge of the theories, practices and procedures related to administrative justice, especially related to quasi-judicial bodies; understanding of the relevant global, societal and economic trends, stakeholders' concerns, the government's policy agenda and how it relates to the CRTC; knowledge of the regulatory environment in which the broadcasting and telecommunications industries operate in Canada and abroad; knowledge of broad issues related to media convergence would be an asset; ability to interpret relevant statutes, regulations; ability to conduct a fair and efficient quasi-judicial hearing; ability to build consensus; ability to develop effective working relationships and promote meaningful dialogue with a variety of stakeholders; and superior communication skills, both written and oral.

Honourable senators, I have asked some very simple questions since this announcement was made on February 4. When did Mr. Pentefountas apply according to the notice that appeared prior to the deadline of June 28? Did he meet with a selection committee? If he did, on what date did he meet with them?

The Leader of the Government did say at some point that it was an independent, transparent, rigorous system and Mr. Pentefountas was found to be qualified. What date was that on? She would not answer. At some point, she said that it is in Hansard. He was found to be the most competent of all the candidates — not only qualified, but now he becomes the most qualified. I respectfully and forcefully submit that this is beyond belief. I cannot believe it.

What is sad is that the Prime Minister and his party were elected because in 2006 he made the commitment in his Stand Up for Canada document that he was going to:

Establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards, commissions, and agencies, to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted.

That is in the document published in 2006.

What is extraordinary is that he did not create that appointments commission. In 2008, he was re-elected because he repeated that commitment, as Senator Day said in a speech a few days ago. The commitment was made a second time.

I heard my colleague, Senator Oliver, say that it was rejected. Senator Oliver, are you serious? Is it really an excuse to say a parliamentary committee of all the parties found that it was quite disputable, the question of the selection of the chairman?

What did the Prime Minister do? He threw out the baby with the bathwater. "You do not want my chairman? Then, no commission." What kind of argument is that?

Then, in 2008, he reiterated the same commitment, and today we are in a situation that is without precedent.

If one looks to the law of the CRTC, what does it say? It states that one may appoint a vice-chair among the present actual commissioners, advisers or councillors of the CRTC. What did the government decide? That they will appoint him as a councillor and commissioner, and, in the same sentence, they will also appoint him as the vice-chair.

What I want honourable senators to understand is that by putting aside the merit principle, there are very serious consequences. The first one is that competent people are discouraged from competing again when we make such a mockery of the merit principle.

We can do whatever we want in politics. The only thing we cannot do is evade the consequences of our decisions. I submit respectfully that by making a mockery of the merit principle, we are discouraging competent people from putting forward their names to serve in the public interest.

In that regard, not only is the government hurt by doing that, but all political parties are hurt, and the citizenry of this country becomes cynical. That means they will participate less in the democratic process. All those consequences are laid together, one after the other.

I do not have the time to go through all the notes I have prepared. However, the Prime Minister in two consecutive elections, in 2006 and 2008, promised that he would appoint an appointment commission according to the Federal Accountability Act. Twice, that was not done.

I look to all the vice-chairs who were appointed at the CRTC, I look to those fundamental issues that the Prime Minister understood so well to elevate the confidence of the people. He promised an array of measures, whether it was to protect whistle-blowers, accountability or providing expanded jurisdiction to the Auditor General. Then what happened?

We have seen honest public servants, such as Linda Keen, former Chair of the Nuclear Safety Commission, removed from her job, despite public promises to protect public servants from reprisals. They have taken reprisals against a number of public servants and appointed their friends and cronies to positions of critical importance.

I do not think we can overestimate the damage done in appointing someone who might be a good, competent lawyer as vice-chair, with the understanding that he will be the chair in 10 months. I can assure all honourable senators, and they can check for themselves, the way in which the appointments process was done. Someone who was not knowledgeable was appointed as vice-chair who will succeed the present chair. Prime Minister Harper promised that we would alternate between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. This vice-chair will succeed the Honourable Konrad von Finckenstein in January 2012.

This is without precedent, honourable senators. As the notice of that position clearly states: "The vice-chair of broadcasting assumes the responsibility of broadcasting." We live in an era of communication and media. Communication is the main characteristic of our era. To appoint someone to that field because he can instantly come in is very sad. As I said, it will make the public cynical, it will hurt all political parties, and finally democracy will suffer.

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators