Evidence of meeting #13 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was privacy.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I just want a clarification, Mr. Chair.
He answers to the House of Commons; he doesn't answer to the Senate. Isn't that right?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I don't think the Senate should be involved, if he doesn't answer to the Senate. Are there other officers answerable to the House of Commons?
4:55 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Off the top of my head, I assume every other officer of Parliament, when he or she tables a report, which is how they communicate, table it with the Speakers or through the Speakers of both chambers.
4:55 p.m.
Committee Researcher
No. My recollection of the Canada Elections Act is that his reports are presented to the Speaker for tabling in the House, because they involve the election of members of the House.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That must be the reason it hasn't happened before. That must be the reason, but I'm not an expert on those matters.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Chair, just on this particular point, my understanding is that at least under the existing laws, pending the acceptance of Bill C-2, there are two ethics commissioners or counsellors. The Senate have their own ethics person, and yet, going by what Jamie has just said to us, the appointment and ratification of our Ethics Commissioner—to take ownership of him—who is responsible for the members of Parliament exclusively, not for senators, still has to go through the Senate.
4:55 p.m.
Committee Researcher
That is partly, though, because the Ethics Commissioner is also responsible for the Prime Minister's Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for ministers. He is responsible for the Prime Minister's code, that is, for ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and public office holders, as well as for the House of Commons code. The Senate Ethics Officer is only an officer of the Senate, because he is only responsible for the Senate.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
May I make a recommendation at this point that we leave it as status quo?
Mr. Guimond, and then Mr. Godin.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
The best evidence of that is that the Senate does not even want a common ethics commissioner. The senators want the Senate to have its own ethics commissioner and the House of Commons to have its own. That is a good example.
Besides, there is a reason why we have this process at the present time. Should a non-elected house have any say in the appointment of the person who manages the process applicable to elected members? This separation of powers is logical. I suggest we leave it as it is.
5 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, according to the draft, the Senate is currently given no role in the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, although it participates in the removal for cause of the Chief Electoral Officer. This has already been mentioned. Who established this rule? The Senate cannot appoint someone it may remove!
5 p.m.
Committee Researcher
That has been in the act for many years. As Monsieur Simard said, you cannot remove the Chief Electoral Officer without a resolution of both chambers, like any other officer of Parliament. One chamber alone cannot remove any officer of Parliament.
The reason they have given this power to the Senate in this case, even though the Senate is not involved in the appointment, is presumably for protection—to ensure that as Monsieur Simard said, the House by majority did not decide to remove a Chief Electoral Officer without some check from the Senate, which is presumably more objective in such matters.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
May I suggest, given the fact that the state of the Senate may change over the next couple of years, that we leave this as status quo and allow it to be dealt with at another time?
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
So the recommendation from the chair is that we vote no on this and allow it to be dealt with later. Is that acceptable to the committee?
5 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I would like to make sure we get as much done as possible.
Does anybody want to deal with the issue raised by Mr. Simard at this time: putting a time limit on the term of the Chief Electoral Officer? So that we have a round figure here, may I throw out 12 years for argument?
Mr. Hill.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Here again, I would ask if Jamie has information about the length of tenure for other officers of Parliament. I assume they have some sort of length of tenure to their appointments. It might help frame our discussion if we want to consider making a change in the tenure for the Chief Electoral Officer.
5 p.m.
Committee Researcher
The Auditor General has a term of 10 years. For the privacy, access, and official languages commissioners, we were trying to figure out if their term is five or seven years, but it's certainly one of those two. For the ethics commissioners, one term is for five and the other for seven.
In the case of the Chief Electoral Officer, he holds office during good behaviour until age 65. So if appointed in his or her thirties or forties, he or she will be there until 65. There is no term; it's dependent on their age at appointment.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Ironically, it's just like a senator, albeit 10 years younger.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Any other comment on that?
Mr. Hill, are you satisfied at this point?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I would make the comment that I certainly think it's an issue the committee might want to consider. Here again I agree with Mr. Simard that it shouldn't be taken as a reflection on the work that Mr. Kingsley has done in that capacity. It's great to have job security, but—