On March 15, 2004, the President of the Treasury Board issued a press release to announce and highlight the elements of a new appointment process for top executives of Crown Corporations. On April 23, 2004, he also issued a letter to the Acting President of Canada Post which laid out, in full detail, the process to be used for the appointment of a Chair for the Board of Directors which is a part-time position with an annual compensation consisting of a retainer of between $17,400 and $20,500. The interim chair had already resigned and there were three other vacancies on the Board.

The principle point of the majority report is that Canada Post did not follow the process highlighted in the press release but rather followed the process as detailed in the communication to Canada Post. The only part of the process outlined in the press release that was not done was the requirement that a professional recruitment firm “will be engaged” and that advertisements “will be posted” in newspapers and in the Canada Gazette. In comparison, the communication to Canada Post stated that a professional recruitment firm will be used “where appropriate” and the positions would “normally” be advertised in the Canada Gazette and “national” newspapers.

The question really comes down to whether a process should be rigid or be flexible to take into account unique or urgent circumstances or other reasonable exceptions to the normal practice.

The President of the Treasury Board, the Minister responsible for Canada Post and the Chair of the Nominating Committee all testified that there was an urgent need to fill the vacancy. There was an acting President, no Chair of the Board and three vacancies for Directors. In their view, to delay an appointment for several months while a professional search was conducted, was not in the best interests of Canada Post when suitable candidates were already identified.

We concur that the unique circumstances at Canada Post were such that there was an urgent need to expedite the appointment process. We also concur with the Chair of the Nominating Committee that spending over $100,000 for a recruitment firm to find a part-time appointee was unnecessary as suitable candidates had already been identified.

Although the opposition members had argued that the appointment process highlighted in the press release should have been rigidly followed, they contradicted themselves by passing a motion that the President of the Treasury Board establish criteria for appointing Chief Executive Officers, Directors and Chairs of Crown Corporations. This was in fact to acknowledge that the appointment process should be flexible to respond to unique circumstances or differences that exist in regard to the 46 Crown Corporations of Canada.

On completion of the prescribed process, the appointment of Mr. Gordon Feeney was referred to the Standing Committee under Standing Order 111 to review his qualifications and competence. The Committee asked no questions in this regard but unanimously agreed that Mr. Feeney’s qualifications and competence were self-evident and not in question.

Finally, we take exception to the first two paragraphs under the heading “Concluding Remarks”. We find that the language to be unduly partisan and that the innuendo is not reflective of the facts or the evidence received by the Committee. If the Committee had a basis of concern for the appointment or for his relationship to any of the parties involved, it would have stated that fact and made a consequential recommendation to be reported to the House. No such recommendation was made and we therefore disassociate ourselves from these inappropriate statements which undermine the credibility of the Committee.

Respectfully submitted:

Paul Szabo, Diane Marleau, Marc Godbout, Ken Boshcoff, Francis Scarpaleggia.