Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 8th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wild, there may be an error. Maybe you could talk about this.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I haven't finished.

My convictions have been shaken by the remarks of Mr. Poilievre, who said that criteria absolutely had to be included because, otherwise, primary substitute teachers, or I don't know who would be hired to occupy these offices.

I'd like to ask our experts to give us the hiring criteria for the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.

I believe there are no criteria, except common sense, and that that must be accepted, upon consultation with the party leaders. To date, we've never had any duds occupying those offices.

Am I wrong? That might inform the debate.

[Joe Wild]

Mr. Chairman, in response to the first question, in proposed paragraph 81(2)(b), we should in fact have said “du gouverneur en conseil”, not “du commissaire”.

I would ask you to wait a moment for the answer to your other question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You know what, Mr. Wild, it appears we're acknowledging an error. At the risk of the committee accusing the chairman of influencing a vote, it's probably yet another reason why BQ-8 should be put over until the next sitting of the committee. We have an error, and we have a motion that.... So if we're acknowledging that there's an error, maybe we can clean up the whole mess—that's an improper word—or rather, clear up the problem at the next meeting.

Mr. Wild.

[Joe Wild]

On the second part of the question, Mr. Chairman, it's quite correct that the statutes establishing the positions of those various commissioners--the official languages commissioner and so on--do not set out any qualifications, but those functions are not quasi-judicial in nature. They are in essence ombudsman functions, and that is a distinction between this particular commissioner and those.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Wild, there's a circular problem here. To say that commissioners who don't have quasi-judicial functions don't have that requirement because they're not performing quasi-judicial functions would suggest that any appointment to any quasi-judicial tribunal would have to have that experience beforehand, but as we all know, the appointments come to any number of boards, commissions, and tribunals without even legal experience, let alone judicial experience. The way you've explained that suggests that to do a quasi-judicial function, you must have had quasi-judicial experience, and you don't.

Let me just say a couple of other things on this whole section. As part of this act, we're going to be creating, we hope, an appointments commission. It is going to deal with all order in council appointments and is going to set out criteria of merit, transparency, and fairness. The concern that not having such qualifications here will simply open it up to patronage, I think, avoids one of our main intentions, which is to create an appointments process that eliminates the possibility of that type of patronage.

I'm very much in favour of this amendment.

I think it's almost meaningless in many ways.... Lots of commissions don't perform quasi-judicial functions. They simply don't. You've got human rights commissions and you've got human rights tribunals, and one does the quasi-judicial and one deals much more broadly. For an ethics and conflict of interest commissioner, perhaps the person most skilled in this country in ethical issues, Dr. Margaret Somerville, would not qualify for this. I think we have to put real faith in the appointments process that we also hope to set up through this act; it would obviate the need for this type of section.

It seems to me from all this discussion that it creates more confusion and harm and restriction than perhaps we are wanting to achieve. I will be voting in favour of the--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, what we're going to do here is this. I first of all want to thank the committee for helping the chair get through a very difficult time. We're not there yet, but I do appreciate all the assistance that committee members have been giving me.

I want to remind you that Mr. Martin has served a notice of motion. We're going to vote on whether we can table amendment BQ-8 over until the next sitting of the committee. We're going to have a break; then we're going to come back and, we hope, vote on that.

We will break for four or five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to call the meeting back to order. Perhaps you could all take your seats, please; if not we'll start without you.

Just to remind you again, we have a request.

Mr. Sauvageau, a point of order.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No, but I'd like to say something.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, you'll have to wait until I finish what I have to say.

Just to remind committee members, we have a request, a notice of motion by Mr. Martin to table an amendment. We now are about to vote on whether BQ-8 would be put over to that time, which would be the next meeting, which would be on Monday.

Is there any further debate on what I've just said?

Mr. Sauvageau?

Are we okay, are we ready to vote?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If Mr. Sauvageau has the floor, then he should make his comment.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like us to be given some time to draft an amendment, but I don't know whether unanimous consent is necessary for that. I'm going to speak, and you'll tell me whether it's admissible or not and what I should do.

In the context of the transitional measures, we'd like the present Ethics Commissioner to automatically keep his position and to ensure the transition until the end of his term. We would also like the Public Appointments Commissioner, since Bill C-2 creates that position, to define the hiring conditions of the next public sector Integrity Commissioner.

We don't want the government to duplicate the bodies it wants to put in place. We're convinced that the Public Appointments Commissioner will be a qualified person and will determine proper appointment criteria. We want to give him all possible leeway. That way, we could pass the amendment, eliminate that, and everything would be in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we addressing this Bloc amendment 8? I don't detect any discussion on Bloc amendment 8. We're now talking about a totally different section of the bill that's completely unrelated. If the member across wants to introduce an amendment on that, he would have to give proper notice. I would ask that you bring the member back to the subject, and let's get on with voting on this and stop delaying.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On that point, Mr. Poilievre is correct, that's a substantive amendment. Whatever section it's under, unless we go through the same procedure as we're doing with Mr. Martin, you'd have to give us a notice of motion on that.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As I understand it, we're about to vote on whether or not we will table BQ-8--to give me time, the 24 hours I need to amend it. Could we have that vote?

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

But his amendment does not amend BQ-8?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, it doesn't.

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

So there's no linkage between the two. We do not need to table BQ-8 in order to await another amendment from Mr. Martin, because the amendment that Mr. Martin is putting forward is entirely separate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The problem is, Mr. Poilievre, the amendment and BQ-8 contravene each other. You have to decide on one or the other. With due respect, I think if the committee wishes to do it, we'd have to stand it down. But there's a conflict.

I have people wanting a vote. Is that what we're going to do?

Mr. Martin, are you ready to vote on this?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm in about the same position as you are, Mr. Chair; I haven't a clue. I think I have an idea of what I'm trying to achieve. If what you're trying to do is help me achieve what I'm seeking to achieve, then I trust you and--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know exactly what you're trying to do. As I said before, I'm bound by the rules, and unless I get unanimous consent--

[A voice]

No, a majority vote on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, I understand that. We've passed that.

We're now on a majority vote as to whether or not amendment BQ-8 will be put over and dealt with at the same time as your amendment.

Does everyone understand what we are doing?