Question No. 437 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon: (a) who did what and when prior to the Selection Panel being convened; (b) who determined the process to be followed with respect to the most recent appointment process to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC); (c) was the process for Justice Wagner designed with the departure of Justice Fish a year later in mind; (d) was the process for Justice Nadon designed with the forthcoming departure of Justice LeBel in mind; (e) in the breakdown of appointment process costs provided in the answer to Q-239, what accounts for the “Acquisition ...[+++] of Machinery and Equipment” cost associated with the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon; (f) was there a competitive bidding process with respect to the goods and services in (a); (g) what accounts for the greater cost of “Legal Services” for the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon relative to the reported costs provided in the answer to Q-239 for other Justices; (h) are the costs for the legal opinions of Justices Binnie and Charron included in the “Legal Services” heading for the appointment process of Justice Marc Nadon reported in the answer to Q-239; (i) if the answer to (f) is no, under what heading are these opinion costs found and, if not reported in the answer to Q-239, where are they reported; (j) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (k) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (l) how long will the materials relative to Justice Nadon's appointment remain on the website for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada; (m) when were these material ...

However, in its reply dated 10 August 2012, the Commission sent to the Tribunal only some of the documents requested, on the ground that the papers for the different versions of competition subjects used were highly sensitive and it was essential to ensure the confidentiality of the method used in EPSO’s selection procedures when constructing and applying the different versions.

Although a notice of competition gives unsuccessful candidates the specific right of access to certain information concerning them directly and individually so that they may obtain information and documents enabling them to take an informed decision as to whether it is appropriate to challenge a decision to exclude them from the competition, strict observance by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of that right, both as regards the substance of that right and in respect of the time-limit for responding, is the embodiment of the duties which stem from the principle of good administration, the public right of access to documents ...[+++] and the right to an effective remedy, in accordance with Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reply is as follows: a) Since 2001, a national area of selection has been required for all senior officer level jobs in external recruitment. The commission has encouraged departments to use a national area of selection, whenever appropriate, for jobs in external recruitment.

There have been time lags that have come into the process—selection of panellists and these types of administration elements—and those elements are being looked at to see how we can reduce the timeframes, because that's a very important part of the equation.

Clause 141 provides that if at least four selecting bodies (at least one of which must be a municipality or regional authority referred to in clause 63(4) and at least one of which must be a non-governmental entity referred to in clause 63(5)) request a meeting within 30 days after the airport authority has sent them its response to the reviewer’s report, the board must invite all selecting bodies and the reviewer to a meeting to discuss any matter in the report raised by a selecting body, and any measures to be taken by the authority ...[+++] to implement the recommendations of the report, or the reasons why no such measures may be taken.