Evidence of meeting #20 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're on to page 22, and that's okay to proceed.
Mr. Sauvageau, you're on the air for page 22.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I'm going to surprise my Conservative friends, but I'd like to make this part of Bill C-2 a little less harsh. Subclause 35(1) states:
35.(1) No former reporting public office holder shall enter into a contract of service with, accept an appointment to a board of directors of [...]
We think there may be exceptional provisions. I used an example the other day. I did it pleasantly, but it was thought that that was not the case. We wouldn't want, for example, a former Minister of Justice with a clean record not to be able to work at a tribunal after his employment. On an exceptional basis, the Commissioner should be able to exempt a former public office holder upon request, but providing the name, conditions of the exemption and the reasons for his decision. That may occur once in 10 years.
I'm going to give you another example, which doesn't apply to Ottawa. Would this mean that a doctor who is a Minister of Health subsequently be unable to practise at a hospital? He wouldn't have been a lobbyist, he wouldn't have been corrupted, or anything like that. We want to ensure that, in some cases, the Commissioner can exempt former public office holders from this restriction, but on certain conditions.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I'd just like to know from our panel of experts if they foresee any instances under the current draft of Bill C-2 where you could have former justice ministers unable to practise law, or former health ministers unable to practise medicine, or any of the examples Mr. Sauvageau gave. Could the panel describe whether or not the law provides for this?
4:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Let me address that point. Proposed section 39 of the proposed act in the bill that's before you actually does provide for a discretion in the commissioner to reduce the limitation period referred to in proposed section 36, and proposed section 36 itself refers back to the substantive prohibitions in proposed section 35.
In respect of a minister, if that's the example before us, a minister is governed by proposed section 35 for a two-year period; however, under proposed section 39 that minister may apply to the commissioner. There are criteria in that section to guide the commissioner, who may, in the appropriate case, reduce in part or in whole the limitation period of a government minister. And there is a similar procedure for all public officer-holders.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So that exists currently within the law? Is that kind of exemption already there to protect against these cases Mr. Sauvageau warns of?
4:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
That's correct.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
If I understand correctly, you're saying that, even if clause 39 refers to the “applicable period set out in section 36”, we are to understand that that includes clause 35.
4:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
That's correct.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
4:25 p.m.
Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Proposed section 39 gives discretion to the commissioner to waive or reduce the cooling-off period in proposed section 36, and if you turn to proposed section 36 you'll find that it refers to proposed section 35.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The amendment is withdrawn.
On the next two, I have a problem I'm going to need some help with. Page 23 has a line conflict with page 24. It has to be one or the other, or you could have a subamendment.
Monsieur Sauvageau, I'm just pointing out to you that we have this problem. I don't know what the government....
Do you understand what I've said?
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I understand what you're saying.
We'll need the help of our witnesses. We want to ensure that it is no longer possible for an individual to go see his member in order to file a complaint with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner and for the member to be required to swear an oath. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Walsh, the law clerks and a number of witnesses have emphasized that that caused a problem. I propose that we adopt a model similar to that in effect at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, under which citizens can go and see the Commissioner of Official Languages directly. That's why we're moving the amendment that appears on page 25.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
That's good.
We'd like the Commissioner, not the minister, to be able to exempt certain persons.
4:25 p.m.
Acting Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
By way of background on the current proposed section 38, this is an exception to the general rule that all public office holders are governed by the cooling-off period insofar as the minister can exempt members of his or her exempt staff from the application of the cooling-off period. Under the current regime, with the present code, in fact all ministerial staff are excluded unless their minister directly or expressly has them included for the purpose of the cooling-off period. In this regime, we've reversed the onus so that all exempt staff are deemed to be subject to the cooling-off period unless the minister expressly excludes them. As you'll see, there are statutory criteria to govern the minister in determining whether or not to exclude an exempt staff person.
The kinds of scenarios that are envisaged here are people who may have worked on a minister's staff as exempt staff but who either were there for a very short period of time or who had no substantive responsibilities; in other words, they were there to provide secretarial help, that sort of thing.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
That's precisely what we understood. That's why we're tabling the amendment. Since transparency is the underlying principle of the bill, we don't want the minister to decide which individual in his department is to be subject or not subject to clauses 35 and 37. We also want the Integrity Commissioner to decide for all other positions.
So we want to amend subclause 38(1). We want to replace the words “A minister of the Crown or a minister of state may exempt” with “The Commissioner may exempt”. We could also write: “may exempt upon consultation with the minister.” That wouldn't be a problem at all.
Why would the minister be judge and party with regard to the decision to exempt or not to exempt a particular member of his staff?
I'm sure this is just a minor breach of transparency by the Conservatives that they'll no doubt want to correct immediately.