Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 7th, 2006

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

No?

[Patrick Hill]

Proposed section 38 is really about whether the exempt staff in question are covered by the cooling-off period at all. If they are covered, then proposed section 39--which gives the commissioner discretion to waive some or all of its provisions for a shorter or longer period of time--would apply. Proposed section 38 is the means by which it's determined whether exempt staff are subject to any of those cooling-off rules.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question is for Mr. Wild.

Let's suppose this concerns the Commissioner, rather than “a minister of the Crown or a minister of state”. How then could we combine clauses 38 and 39? Clause 39 grants access to a kind of higher level. It affords the opportunity to have a decision changed. Clause 39 would not permit that. The only possible remedy would be the Federal Court. We would be depriving ourselves of a level.

[Patrick Hill]

Again, the purpose of proposed section 38 is to give a minister the discretion, in accordance with the statutory criteria, to determine whether or not his or her exempt staff are to be covered by the substantive cooling-off rules found in proposed section 35. The first order of decision in the case of an exempt staff member would be for the minister decide whether or not that person is to be exempted.

In the event that a person were not exempted, so you have an exempt staff member who has not been exempted, then under proposed section 39—as for all other reporting public office holders—the reporting public office holder may make an application to the commissioner in accordance with a separate set of criteria for a shortening of the cooling-off period, or a waiver of some of its substantive provisions. The commissioner would always have, in respect of any person subject to the cooling off-period, the discretion that you see in proposed section 39.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have another comment, Mr. Owen?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

It's just for all colleagues here to note that proposed paragraphs 38(2)(a) to (d) are not separate; they are cumulative. They have to meet all of those criteria, which define pretty clearly low-level, not engaged....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have finished the debate on BQ-3, and there is a line conflict between it and G-14, the next amendment. Both amendments can't be adopted, as a line in a bill may only be adopted once at the committee stage. So G-14, the next amendment, may be moved as a subamendment to BQ-3.

I need help from the committee on this.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Do you propose then that we vote on the subamendment and then vote on the main amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

G-14 would be a subamendment, if that's what you wish.

[An hon. member]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to move on to BQ-4 on page 25.

We have more line conflicts. There are line conflicts between BQ-4, G-15, and G-16. Amendments G-15 and G-16 may be moved as subamendments to BQ-4.

BQ-4 also has a line conflict with NDP-1.1.

Isn't this exciting television?

As BQ-4 also has a line conflict with NDP-1.1, the committee will have to choose between BQ-4 and NDP-1.1.

These four amendments will be grouped for debate.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If we agree to BQ-4, G-15, NDP-1 and G-16 become moot. That's how we've interpreted the situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have an answer--I hope.

If we vote on amendment BQ-4, we can't vote on the other ones. The only way we can do it is through a subamendment; we can vote on the other ones through a subamendment.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We were made to get along.

By amendment BQ-4, we want to correct the problems raised by Mr. Walsh and the legislative drafters, that is the problem of parliamentary privilege. When we attended the briefing for the introduction of Bill C-2, I raised this question, saying that it was all well and good in theory, but that it was unfeasible and unthinkable in practice.

I'll give you an example. All the citizens in my electoral district read the bill, and one of them observes that there's been wrongdoing under the terms of the bill. He has to go through the member, who has to determine whether or not his complaint is admissible, then swear an oath and tell it to the Commissioner.

If I remember correctly, none of the witnesses who appeared told us that this way of proceeding made any sense. The law clerk told us the same thing. Furthermore, we have a model that we can follow, that of the Commissioner of Official Languages. If a citizen sees that something isn't right, he can file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

First, we have to delete the stage of going through a member. I wonder whether a single member from any of the parties would tell one of his or her constituents that that person's idea makes no sense and that he or she considers it inadmissible.

Second, our population may include a number of pressure groups. Let's suppose pressure group B decides to send three people, five days a week, to the member's office to file a complaint. That may complicate our everyday work.

For all these reasons, I propose that we adopt the tested model of the Commissioner of Official Languages, that we eliminate the stage of going through the member and that we correct the points that troubled the law clerk from the House of Commons.

That's why the Bloc moves amendment BQ-4, which appears on page 25.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that this is also to depoliticize the process. When we do it, we politicize a system. It shouldn't be that way. We're talking about clarity and transparency. In this case, we're not making the matter more transparent by requiring citizens who want to file a complaint to go and see a member who isn't necessarily a member of their political allegiance. This is a situation that may be highly conflictual and very difficult. It's better that the complaint be filed directly with the Commissioner, without going through any political office.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I would like to make a general comment, without arguing one point or the other, that this is not an uncommon provision in legislation of the ombudsman type.

In France the Médiateur de la République has the same provision. That is the ombudsperson of France. Also, the commissioner for public administration in the U.K., the U.K. ombudsman, has the same. Both have those provisions.

It stops landslide complaints, perhaps, for those offices. It stops having to constantly deal with very large numbers of complaints and having to turn people down because their complaints are frivolous, vexatious, or apparently without merit.

I'm not offended by this. There is a solid rationale for it. It is quite commonly practised in these types of offices in other countries. That's just for people's information.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'll comment on the Bloc amendment and then I'll table a subamendment.

The reason we chose the member of Parliament route is that we want to make this process administratively sound. If you allow 30 million people access to one bureau to submit their complaints, there might be so many complaints and so many of them frivolous that they're not ultimately going to be investigated with any rigour.

For example, I think back to the gun registry. I think you would have found that out of the Prairies in western Canada you probably would have had over 50,000 complaints about the ethics of that program and the people who were involved in administering it. To expect that one commissioner would be able to investigate all of those complaints with any rigour is unrealistic. So what we suggested instead was that they make their complaint through their member of Parliament and that the member of Parliament then move forward with the ones they find have some merit and discard the ones they believe do not and then ultimately be held accountable for their decisions locally at election time.

That is the only way we can do this, I believe, with any administrative sanity. That is why we opted to allow every citizen the right to raise a concern and submit a complaint. That is our approach. We believe that every citizen should have the right to do that, but that a member of Parliament should have the responsibility to take a look at it first and decide whether they believe it has merit.

I should also say that if there is any question about the ethical behaviour of a public office holder, in a House of Commons with 308 members representing four parties, somebody is going to raise the concern. Somebody is going to submit the complaint. Somebody will have a partisan interest to submit the complaint. There's nothing wrong with their doing that. So we think that it's more than sufficient to allow members of Parliament to lead this process, and with that, I'd like to move on to a subamendment I have.

I move that government amendment G-15 be made a subamendment of BQ-4.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could we just pause for a moment, please, for Mr. Poilievre to confer with the clerk.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The clerk has just told me that although she had earlier suggested that this could be appropriately added as a subamendment, she has now said that is not the case. So I will take her advice and allow it to be voted on separately.

I gather then we're still talking about BQ-4, separate from G-15.