Evidence of meeting #24 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Now, L-9. That is consequential, so I assume you're going to withdraw L-9.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
L-9 is withdrawn.
Clause 100 is consequential to clauses 102 to 105 and 107. The vote I'm going to call is on clause 100 and applies to 102 to 105 and 107.
(Clause 100 agreed to)
(Clauses 102 to 105 inclusive agreed to)
(Clause 107 agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We'll go to the New Democratic amendment on page 80. New Democratic motion, NDP-8.
Will you move that, Mr. Martin?
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes, I will move NDP-8 on page 80, which is seeking to amend section 23 by adding the following after subsection (3):
(4) Each special report of the Commission made under subsection (3) shall be submitted to the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament and shall be laid before each House by the Speaker of that House immediately after its receipt
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Martin, before you get into debate, I'm going to rule it out of order.
NDP-8 proposes that special reports of the commissioner will be submitted to the Speaker of the Senate and House for tabling in each House. It is amending section 23 of the Public Service Employment Act.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 654, that “an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.
Since section 23 of the Public Service Employment Act is not being amended by Bill C-2, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, NDP-8 is inadmissible.
We therefore move to Liberal amendment, L-10, which is found on page 81.
Mr. Owen, Ms. Jennings.
The chair would like to rule on that one. Is it withdrawn or moved?
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I will relieve the chair from his obligation to rule it out of order by withdrawing it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
We now move to clause 101.
(On clause 101)
There is a Liberal amendment, L-11, which is found on page 82. This clause has to do with the mobility of ministers' staff.
Mr. Owen.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I'm sorry. I'll have to be more authoritative, I suppose.
Would this not also be considered outside the scope of Bill C-2, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
This amendment, proposed by my colleague Mr. Owen, is based on part of the presentation that was made to us by the president of the Public Service Commission, Madam Barrados.
Clause 101 seeks to permit and regulate the right of “a person who has been employed for at least three years in the office of a minister or of a person holding the recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, or any of those offices successively,” to apply for government competitions.
The scope should be opened up to allow individuals who are employed by the Senate, the House of Commons, Library of Parliament, or the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to also participate under the same conditions.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 101 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 106)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Now we go to clause 106. There is an amendment, G-33, on page 83. It is a government amendment. This deals with salaries of deputy ministers.
Before we ask the government to propose the amendment, I draw the committee's attention to a line conflict between G-33 and L-12. And I hope, members, you have G-33.1 in your binder. That has a line conflict as well.
Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, I would move G-33, and I would propose the following subamendment that would add the words, “a deputy minister” at the end of proposed paragraph (c). So where it currently reads,
(b) replacing, in the English version, lines 8 and 9 on page 88 with the following:
(c) special adviser to a minister.
a comma would be added, followed by “a deputy minister or a deputy head”.
This further clarifies the existing clause in the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
So it would be just to G-33.1. That's what it's done.
Mr. Poilievre--
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yes, what you've done really is move G-33.1. So I'm wondering whether we should proceed on G-33.1 as opposed to G-33.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
And then we won't have any subamendments.
Okay, so we're cutting these down one by one. We still have a line conflict with L-12.
Mr. Poilievre, do you have any further comments?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I think it speaks for itself. Do the technical experts have anything to add?
Marc O'Sullivan Acting Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, As an Individual
I would just point out that the intent of this provision is to allow for appointments that until now have been made under the Public Service Employment Act by way of exclusion order, and it's a way of regularizing this so that it is now authorized by this amendment to the Public Service Employment Act.
The clarification was because of a lack of congruence between the French and English versions, and the purpose of this amendment, G-33.1, is to resolve that difference between the English and French versions.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Yes, I think this deals with the issue sufficiently, as explained, so that we can withdraw L-12.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're voting on G-33.1.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 106 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 108--Order in Council)