House Must Approve Public Inquiry Commissioners

Summary#

This bill changes how the federal government appoints commissioners for public inquiries. It requires cross‑party consultation and a formal approval vote by the House of Commons before any commissioner is named (Bill Summary; Bill, clause 1 amending Inquiries Act s.3). It applies to inquiries under the Inquiries Act that are not already governed by a special law (Inquiries Act s.2; Bill, clause 1).

• Commissioners must be appointed only after consulting leaders of every recognized party in the House of Commons (Bill, clause 1).
• The House of Commons must approve each appointment by resolution before it takes effect (Bill, clause 1).
• The Governor in Council (the federal Cabinet acting through the Governor General) still issues the appointment, but now with extra steps (Bill, clause 1).
• The change does not cover inquiries set up under other specific statutes (Inquiries Act s.2; Bill, clause 1).
• No new powers or funding are created; the bill only changes the appointment process (Bill text).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • You will not see direct changes to services or taxes. The effect is indirect: public inquiry leaders would need multi‑party consultation and a House vote before appointment (Bill, clause 1).
  • Starting an inquiry could take longer if the House is not sitting or if parties disagree, which could delay reports on issues of public concern. Timing depends on parliamentary schedules and votes (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).

• Workers and witnesses in inquiries

  • If you work for or appear before an inquiry, the start date may shift due to the added consultation and approval step (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).
  • The process may increase perceived legitimacy because appointments would have support tested in the House (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).

• Businesses and organizations

  • If your sector is subject to an inquiry, the timeline to appoint commissioners may lengthen, which could delay hearings and recommendations (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).
  • Cross‑party input could reduce later disputes over a commissioner’s neutrality (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).

• Local and provincial governments

  • Federal inquiries that involve other orders of government may face schedule changes if House approval takes time (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).
  • Coordination may improve if parties agree on commissioners upfront, but disagreements could stall appointments (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).

• Timing

  • The bill does not set an effective date. Under the Interpretation Act, federal acts take effect on Royal Assent unless stated otherwise (Interpretation Act s.5; Bill text).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Fiscal note: No publicly available fiscal note identified.
• Direct appropriations in the bill: None (Bill text).
• New fees or revenues: None (Bill text).
• Administrative costs: Data unavailable. The bill adds consultation and a House vote but does not fund new offices or staff (Bill text).

Proponents' View#

• Improves democratic oversight: Requiring a House of Commons resolution ensures elected MPs approve commissioners, not just the executive (Bill, clause 1).
• Encourages non‑partisan choices: Mandatory consultation with every recognized party reduces the chance of appointing partisan figures (Bill, clause 1).
• Increases public trust: A visible, cross‑party process may boost confidence in inquiry independence and findings (assumption flagged).
• Aligns process with significance of inquiries: Commissions can have major powers and costs; adding a House vote matches that importance (Inquiries Act s.2; assumption flagged).
• Minimal fiscal impact: The bill changes process only; inquiry budgets and cost drivers remain under existing law (Bill text).

Opponents' View#

• Risk of delay: Adding consultations and a House vote may slow the launch of urgent inquiries, especially when the House is not sitting or during minority governments (assumption flagged; Bill, clause 1).
• Potential politicization: Party leaders could bargain over commissioners, making the process more political rather than less (assumption flagged).
• Executive flexibility reduced: The Governor in Council would have less ability to act quickly in crises where rapid appointments are needed (Bill, clause 1; assumption flagged).
• Gridlock risk: If the House rejects nominees, inquiries could be stalled, leaving issues unexamined for longer (assumption flagged).
• Unclear scope boundaries: The amendment applies only when no “special law” governs an inquiry; determining when that condition applies could invite disputes and further delay (Inquiries Act s.2; Bill, clause 1).