Who chooses watchdogs?

Compared to the scandals now roiling Washington, the case of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s misguided Christmas vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island seems positively quaint. But whatever else comes of the ethics commissioner’s investigation into that trip, something of consequence has already emerged.

The saga has shone a light on a longstanding flaw in our system of democratic oversight: Namely, that the government is allowed to choose the watchdogs whose job it is to hold it to account. It’s time to take another look at how we appoint these guardians of our democracy.

Last week, amid Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s inquiry into Trudeau’s unseemly yuletide getaway, the prime minister recused himself from the search for Dawson’s successor, who is slated to take over in July. Usually, after consultation with the opposition, the PM would select a candidate. But Trudeau rightly determined that, in this case, the optics would be problematic.

Trudeau’s rightful recusal fails to address a deeper issue. What if a future prime minister, faced with a similar situation, chose to behave less ethically? Surely the integrity of the process should be invulnerable to the whims of individual governments.

The current process, which includes consultations with opposition leaders and a motion in the House, offers some transparency, but little constraint.

The government might consider creating a commissioner of public appointments, as the United Kingdom has done, to watch over ministerial nominations.

The function of parliamentary watchdogs is in part to establish and maintain public trust. The new official languages commissioner, who is now being chosen, should be the last appointee chosen through a process that undermines that aim.