Quebec Requires Two Parties for Watchdogs

Summary#

• This bill changes how Quebec’s National Assembly appoints and removes top watchdogs and officials.

• It keeps the two‑thirds vote rule, but adds a new safeguard: the yes votes must come from at least two political parties that hold seats.

• Key changes:

  • Appointments and removals still need support from two‑thirds of all members (at least two out of three members).
  • That support must include members from at least two authorized parties (official parties with seats), not just one party.
  • Applies to many oversight roles, such as the Auditor General, Ombudsperson (Protecteur du citoyen), Chief Electoral Officer, Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Anti‑Corruption leadership (UPAC), Lobbying Commissioner, Access to Information and Privacy bodies, Public Procurement Authority, Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, language institutions, police oversight, and the Public Service Commission.
  • Aims to ensure cross‑party backing for people who guard fairness, spending, and rights.
  • Could slow down appointments or removals if parties cannot agree.

What it means for you#

• Residents and voters

  • Watchdogs who oversee elections, public spending, language rights, privacy, and ethics would need broader political support to be hired or fired. This may strengthen their independence.
  • If parties disagree, top jobs could stay vacant longer. Day‑to‑day services should continue, but leadership gaps could delay some decisions.

• People filing complaints or seeking help

  • The Ombudsperson, Human Rights Commission, and police oversight bodies may be seen as more neutral, since more than one party must agree on their leaders.
  • In rare disputes between parties, it could take longer to name or remove leaders, which might slow big policy changes at those offices.

• Businesses bidding on public contracts

  • The Public Procurement Authority’s leadership would have cross‑party backing, which may add confidence in oversight.
  • Appointment delays are possible if parties cannot reach agreement.

• Public servants and professionals in oversight roles

  • Leaders may be harder to remove without multi‑party support, which can provide more stability.
  • Hiring and dismissal processes could take longer and require more negotiation among parties.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Ensures no single party can control key watchdogs, even if it holds many seats.
• Builds trust: leaders of audit, ethics, elections, and anti‑corruption bodies would have support from more than one party.
• Strengthens independence and reduces the risk of partisan appointments or dismissals.
• Encourages collaboration and compromise on sensitive, high‑impact roles.
• Aligns with the idea that guardians of democracy and rights should have broad backing.

Opponents' View#

• Could cause gridlock: small parties would gain a veto, making appointments or removals harder.
• Vacancies might last longer, leaving agencies without permanent leaders.
• May fuel behind‑the‑scenes bargaining among parties, politicizing choices in a different way.
• Some argue the existing two‑thirds vote already ensures broad support; adding a multi‑party rule may be unnecessary.
• Could slow action when there is a clear need to remove an underperforming or unethical leader.