Picking the watchdogs

The critics calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to recuse himself from the search for a new lobbying commissioner are right. The prime minister appears to have a conflict of interest in the matter.

But a recusal alone is not enough. Trudeau should work to preclude such conflicts in perpetuity by addressing a longstanding flaw in our system of democratic oversight: namely, that the government effectively has sole discretion to choose the watchdogs meant to hold it to account.

In the case of the lobbying commissioner, the conflict is clear. The watchdog is currently investigating two questionable fundraisers held for Trudeau.

The Prime Minister’s Office claims there is no conflict because Trudeau, not being a lobbyist himself, falls outside the watchdog’s jurisdiction. But clearly if the commissioner finds that the lobbyists broke the rules, it would be bad news for the Liberals. The optics of the prime minister picking the new investigator are less than ideal.

But as we have seen in recent months, when it comes to the current process for appointing officers of Parliament, the appearance of conflict is pretty much unavoidable.

Much better would be a process such as the one the Trudeau government introduced for appointing senators or Ontario has in place for picking judges. These approaches rely on independent expert panels to propose a shortlist of candidates to the cabinet, thereby taking partisanship largely out of the process.

Trudeau should do the right thing and recuse himself from the search for a new lobbying commissioner. At the same time, he should promise to update the appointment process for all officers of Parliament so that, when it comes to picking watchdogs, doing the right thing won’t be a question for future prime ministers.